Talk:Kaworu Nagisa

LGBT characters in anime and manga

I think that Kaworu should be listed under the category "LGBT characters in anime and manga," on the grounds that, if his and Shinji's suggestive interactions are reason enough for Shinji to be categorized under "Fictional bisexuals," those scenes should also justify categorizing Kaworu as LGBT. And, if articles on fictional characters encompass all of their appearances in different media (regardless of canonicity), then Kaworu is definitely a shoe-in for the category per the blatantly LGBT portrayals of him in other Evangelion media like The Shinji Ikari Raising Project. Thoughts? 76.231.250.177 (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. We do have references calling him a homosexual, and the drafts of episode 24 (published in a yaoi magazine) are more explicit than the final version, so it's not even disrespectful to the creators' vision. --Gwern (contribs) 16:07 25 March 2011 (GMT)

Kaworu isn't a LGBT character. He's not even human, let alone does he portray a LGBT person. That draft for episode 24 is nothing more than a draft. Furthermore, now that I remember, the draft blatantly rejects that Kaworu has those sort of feelings (as he rejects Shinji's odd confession). I went to read it again, Shinji is astonished by his divine beauty and later states he's insignificant towards someone like him. This hints at the whole god - human dichotomy of the original series, though its true Shinji does come across as having a crush on him (I'd say from his side, its up to discussion regarding the script). However, there is no such a thing from Kaworu's side, unless the translation that I have is fault. Asuka does spread the rumour that they're dating but her rumour isn't indicative of the creator's vision. I don't see why Kaworu is a listed as gay at all. perhaps Shinji, but not Kaworu.

I think the IP's right; it's not clear enough, though there's definitely some of that thematically there (i.e. hints at it). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

I recently transferred some material from my sandbox. As usual, I propose the article to the Guild of CopyEditors for revision.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I've finished editing the new version of the article. I think it is much better now, more balanced and more detailed even though the length is almost the same. I'd like to explain my reasoning here, besides the normal grammar and clarification of some things, particularly to a reader unfamiliar with Evangelion, as I have done in the previous rewrites of the Evangelion character articles, but my additions here won't fit in the "edit reason" box. I've rewritten some portions and added a number of sources. In order:

• Anno didn't write the drafts at all - I added three sources from Evangelion Original specifically detailing the production process of Evangelion as far as scripts go. He did give the general outline, had oversight and approval - ultimately rejecting them, but that's something else. He's only beginning to be credited in Evangelion Original - those are the only ones described as "the original scripts", made after both (published) drafts, only credited to Satsukawa. What Satsukawa did was take Anno's "idea memo" and "expand" it - Sadamoto also noticed it.

• This is missing some details from the interview too (as well as some other ones that deal with the subject, which I've added) and some details of the drafts themselves are outright inaccurate - they don't play together at all, for instance, this was just an idea Kaworu proposes in one of the drafts - it is reused in spin-offs, since those are fanservice. I am also not sure why it's said that *time slot* was a concern. I understand this source is not ideal so take it with a grain of salt but it considers only the gore (obviously not removed) to be a problem for the timeslot, and regardless of that, I have not found any direct mentions to it in the sources. Regardless, detailing just the rejected scripts to this degree seems unnecessary to me when the interview and additional ones include many interesting details about his conceptualization from Anno that were not mentioned, which I've added instead. The second June interview with Nobita Nobi tends to get ignored because it does not deal with Kaworu much (neither does the second half of the first interview!), but it provides further insight into the "conversing in human language" point.

• Not only does Anno deny basing Kaworu or the scene off of anything (and this is merely a supposition on Ikuhara's part, who also treats it as "a rumour"), including fan speculation (identified as such in the article, after all) seems dubious here. Ikuhara himself says that if anything it's Anno that's more like Kaworu, not himself. Fans speculate Asuka is based of a former girlfriend, off Miyamura and Anno's supposed affair with her, or Shikinami being based off Moyoco due to this one afterword in her manga. From what I could tell the Eva Fan Club also treats it as such. Several people think Shinji got Asuka pregnant, including some voice actors - it's technically possible because of the ambiguous wording in the final scene of EoE, but it's still a fan theory. Rei gets the same treatment. It's all apocryphal to say the least. It's never even echoed in Sadamoto's statements either despite him going into detail about designing the character. If it doesn't warrant mention in their articles (nor should it), it doesn't warrant mention in a huge paragraph here. Also, should we note Kaworu is (apparently?) the only character not to be named by Anno?

• Because the Netflix localization is now the most recent and updated one, the only one (easily) legally available since ADV collapsed more than a decade ago, and the only one that was actually made by the creators of the show, it should take priority whenever possible. The old ADV localizations had tons of problems and took multiple creative liberties, had almost no oversight from the show's creators and rather low levels of consistency and professionalism. This happened to the whole anime. To this day people think Asuka is pregnant because her ADV voice actress thought so. They spread several rumours through their interviews and their poor translations created several misconceptions for all of Eva fandom, so I really think we need to keep things as close as possible to the new Netflix/Khara localization. I reinserted the older version of the paragraph dealing with the Netflix controversy, as this was back-translated from it, it seems. Kanemitsu has a long and involved history with Gainax/Khara that predates even Evangelion itself and even contributed to their works and worked with Anno, so his statements should absolutely be considered as he is effectively a staffer.

• "bride by force" as an interjection made by the interviewer, not Tsurumaki. His response is *obviously* humorous, he even laughs. It's a jokeful reference to stealing a bride from someone else, not "taking his wife back". Just read the preceding context, just a few lines before, both the interviewer and Tsurumaki describe (also sarcastically) the entire movie as a plot to get Rei and Shinji together. They both laugh multiple times. If we take this at face value then Rei and Shinji are already a couple since 2.0. But they're not. It's a joke - they even point this out with "there will surely be many viewers who have [that] impression". Also added more context, and other details from his conceptualization for 2.0 that wer not included. Again, more relevant detail and variety using about the same length.
• Not quite what Ishida says.

• I'm not sure if you found about the Cut interview, and a translation of it, in my EvaGeeks thread, but the same translator (Xard) I requested there (and have just consulted) told me to adjust the wording here slightly as his translation was half-joking (see his silly translation of the penis interview). He told me it should come off milder to better reflect Sadamoto's wording, considering the other interviews as well, the whole suki ambiguity etc etc. I can call him if you want. Also matched the Viz licenced English translation - as with the anime subtitles, fan translations get used often. Regarding the "classmate" interview, I think it's worth mentioning that Sadamoto even specifies being younger than Shinji would be.
• I'm sorry about removing a good chunk of the other media section, but if the other character articles largely lost details of their extracanonical relationships with Shinji (and analysis of canon ones), I don't think it's fair to insert this much detail about Kaworu's here, particularly when his appearances are much smaller and less significant. If we don't mention that Shinji has a child with Rei in a route in the GoS 2 game (why should we?), why do we need to describe multiple scenes from Kaworu's smaller route in detail, even one that doesn't even have an ending, and then do the same for the NGE2 game and SIRP game, all of which have dozens of fan-service scenarios with all sorts of characters and pairings, including for the characters that had their more significant details removed? Not just that, this can too easily be interpreted as if Kaworu is the primary feature, or even the sole option, when the opposite is true. With such details having been largely removed from the other articles, it really makes it less neutral now and is giving it undue weight. Especially when pretty much the whole plot of Campus Apocalypse is being described here, maybe the less relevant of all Eva spin-off material. I made it to be more similar to the edits made on the other pages, and removed some slight redunancy in the Petit Eva section. To compensate, I've readded the SIRP manga also, easily the most well-known and relevant spin-off manga, Evangelion Anima. I have also created a little article for that one, as it looks just so ugly to have it all red. This is the latest translated Evangelion spin-off, as well as the Super Robot mention, both of which are much more notable. This is a bit shorter than the previous version, but it is containing far more variety.
• Almost the entire analysis section deals with his relationship with Shinji and not much dealing with the character itself. There are many other things you can talk about - his interest in humanity, in Rei, his connection with Seele, his nature as an Angel, etc etc. I've added a bit of that from some other sources, including official ones to balance it out. I recall some other writers commenting on this as well but haven't added too many.

• Regarding Takekuma, the problem is that people tend to assume it comes straight from Anno despite this being a third party publication and simply Takekuma's opinion in his independently-written character guide, a guy that has no involvement with Eva whatsoever - unlike Kanemitsu, for instance. It includes a bunch of essays and other independently-written work that aren't official Gainax statements either. This also happens in official releases of all sorts of materials, as you often have stuff inserted even by localizers, or present in sections of publications like magazines that are not part of any actual interview or even guide. Newtype, which includes lots of good Eva material, also made a lot of silly speculation and interpretation during the series which of course should not be taken as official. Are we really going to say Shinji didn't trust and have a good friend in Kaji, Touji or Kensuke? If I had a magazine or book and interviewed Anno, and decidedd to write a character guide on my own, separate from the interviews, to acquaint readers who might not be entirely familiar with the material, should I be an official source? No, I should not. These books are of the "taidan"(対談, conversation/dialogue) format, they are common book formats in Japan but rare in the West. Essentially they consist of one or more relevant people, or in this case artists, meeting up and talking about a specific subject in a casual manner with loose moderation, and their discussions are later edited and collected as interviews. Here is another Taidans involving Anno, which barely even mentions Eva. Even Schizo and Parano themselves don't deal entirely with Evangelion: Anno is not the author of the book, he's just the subject, according to Takekuma himself and his co-author, Oizumi. half of the books aren't actually an interview with him but cast members talking about him, Eva, Gainax, and more. Takekuma himself is a not an authoritative source and shouldn't be treated as such. It can even be interpreted as a tertiary source. This isn't my opinion alone - the same person who translated the majority of the books into English many years ago as well as hundreds of other Eva materials disregards it entirely as an "official" statement. If we're going off just one user's position against another, I'd rather err on the side of caution and consider it an interpretation. I didn't remove it completely, but I really think there needs to be a clarification as this is frequently quoted out of context by people elsewhere. Or does someone think it shouldn't be included at all?

• I am wary of using AAKN as a source too much. It's fine for things that are too self evident and found elsewhere, but for some of this of stuff it's questionable. It is a fanbook "ファンブック"), full of fan letters, poems, reprinted erotic manga, interviews with gravure idols, weird, almost fetishistic information on Kaworu etc, not exactly an official guidebook. Claiming Kaworu wanted to marry Shinji or somesuch and that he loved (romantically) him so much, and would love keep loving him so much even if he were a flower, (does that sound like an impartial description or a fanbook full of fanservice?) While then also having a "quizz for kaworuists" contradicting itself with how pure and non-sexual and non-romantic it is, because it is, at the end of the day, merch made for yaoi fans, just like the merch for Rei fans, and Asuka fans, and so on. It's one of the most egregious example of commercial fan pandering in the franchise, and the more specific claims it makes are found in no other source. It's weird, but there are tons of examples of Eva merch being very friendly to all ships. It's licenced and it's "official" but it's not very solid because Gainax would essentially rubber stamp most of these. It's a clear example of merch being aimed at just making money, much like the collected anthologies of pornographic doujinshi, effectively a way for Gainax to profit off fan works in "regular" markets. There's that whole problem of supplemental sources being inherently less trustworthy as they are usually subject to less scrutinizing. Which is why I removed one claim none of the multiple other sources make, even when it should have every incentive to do so. Even the program books (!) contradict the series at some points - the EoE program book says the Angels originated from Lilith, not Adam, when it was only humanity that originated from Lilith.

• However, the claim present in this article is not at all present even in AAKN. Page 84 is cited, but it is just a reprinted manga panel. However, I have seen this claim circulating before, and I know it stems from the French translation of the Newtype 100% guide. However, this is a mistranslation (if not outright alteration) not present in the original Japanese guide at all. Here is page 84 of Newtype 100% guide's French translation yet it was completely absent in the Japanese original. Translation of what it actually says, courtesy of Reichu: "Shinji, feeling betrayed by Kaworu, pursues him with his emotions churning in bitterness". I could be wrong, but I believe it's the same text originally present on the D&R Special Edition program book. I have replaced it entirely with what is actually said on the page.

• Hayashibara and Mitsuishi making a joke during a skit in a music event is something whose inclusion is debatable, but I guess that's more of a reception so it could be fine. Problem is this makes it look like it's reinforcing an interpretation - whereas Shinji's actual VA's opposing interpretation was not initially mentioned. Miyamura (Asuka's VA) says Shinji should "end up with Mari" though of course that's not in his article included, and shouldn't be. I thought it'd be better to simply say "Rei and Misato's voice actresses" instead of citing their whole names (and not Shinji and Kaworu's, which would be a natural assumption) in the image legend itself, since that's where a reader's eye will focus on first. It also has the benefit of being shorter.

• Drazen and Loveridge's criticisms are actually responded within the article, with something that is already mentioned before, and this kinda feels like the source is supposed to invalidate those critics' perception, even though it's a different argument - even if one assumes he had no malice, one can make an argument that his impact was ultimately negative and/or driven by Seele, also by thematic considerations. That is, in fact, what the critic's whole argument is - unconditionality. It's the same argument present in the 3.0 review, for that matter. Shouldn't he have his opinion presented as is? I've moved the source to a bit earlier as it mentions his interest in Shinji too.

• Bertschy's cricism seems mixed to me, and this is cited in reverse. He mentions Kaworu's unconditional affection as something ultimately negative for Shinji's character. Rather than paraphrasing him, I've put the relevant quote with just a bit of it cut, and the resulting length is about the same. The fact that he's echoing a viewpoint presented in other criticisms (while not being entirely negative) present in the same article seems to help further illustrate the point. I've also added one more source with a critical interpretation, specifically focused on the (very common) thematic argument, to balance it out. Likewise, there's no mention of Shinji feeling betrayed. Carl Horn's "Mysterious Stranger" essay is a very famous a piece of interpretation as well, as well as a relatively negative one that balances it out, so I reinserted it. I should mention that the negative interpretations are written inside kinda stuck in-between positive ones, almost eclipsing them, so I've grouped both together.

• My translator and I also double checked the statements in Chronicle and I think there's a bit of overreach. He also provided an additional quote from the first June interview - the commonly available one is somewhat outdated.

• On Reception, a bit too many opinions dealing with the queer interpretation, I think: 5 reviews, more than one from the same site, CBR, a notoriously clickbait site (obviously getting on the Netflix debacle bandwagon, as you can see from the multiple factual errors and overall sensationalism in their reporting of Evangelion), including an advocacy site, versus one negative review. While the critics are of course entitled to their opinion, I think the article needed to balance them out to get closer to NPOV. Again, they're also spread all over the section. I've removed details of those sources, though they are still listed, reordered them and added a few more to put it into context - it's a very Western perspective, to begin with. Some quotations were also back-translated so I reinserted the original English text.

• Ikuhara is quoted twice in the same interview, so I replaced his second quote with one by Kaworu's VA. It also kinda touches on the whole "labyrinth of Evangelion" thing, as he puts it. Probably better than Ikuhara saying pretty much the same thing twice.
• Not much on the Legacy section. The ADV homage is still worthy of mention, I think, since it does have more significance for English-speaking fans. *But* it says the doujins in the June magazine volume were made by "several Eva staffers", and the same source, only mentions one. Because, according to this very same source, he made a seemingly humorous 2 page doujin about Gendo and Fuyutsuki (this is a yaoi magazine, after all), not Kaworu and Shinji, I removed the mention to that, as it can make one assume it had some generalized participation from staff. Is it also necessary to cite multiple yaoi artists in that one release? I've also added the spin-off manga It's A Miraculous Win - technically an Evangelion spin-off, but the fact that it's centered around a clear self-insert character for an Eva female fan dating "Kaworu", inserted into the real world life of an Eva fan, dealing with being an Eva fan it's a good metaexample of his popularity being reflected in merch. AAKN, as mentioned before, is not a guidebook, and has now been mentioned as such - this also makes it the third book published by Kadokawa. I've added a few more slightly negative reviews to balance it out, and in particular I think the Kaiser article is a good addition because he quite succinctly points out the common fan reactions.

• I understand the removals that were made in the other articles - even older versions used be very shippy, but this article kinda did an 180 now. The supplemental material regarding Rei/Shinji and Asuka/Shinji, criticisms and analysis, and limited mention of extracanonical material was almost entirely removed because of Wikipedia's no shipping policy, and because an article on the character should be generally focused on a character. I understand that, even though I took care to limit it. Certainly a character's relationship with others, particularly the protagonist, should be mentioned. But here individual scenes comprising smaller participations in those same spin-offs are detailed? I think they should be kept to the same level as the other articles. I should also mention the usage of terms like "confess", "attracted", and outright calling them a "couple", and repeating the usage of love multiple times in the article even with sources that once again only use the inconclusive "suki" and have had well accepted professional translations for 20 years, that hve instead been translated as "love" here every single time, or that at most talk about Shinji opening himself up to Kaworu, something people don't dispute even in negative interpretations, or expanding on what Ikuhara says significantly. One of my consultants actually lives in China (one of the others in Japan, too and owns all of these sources and more) and he has no idea how "迷惑了" is suppposed to mean "seduces" as written on the article - that's what's used at least on the Chinese version of Film Book 9, which he has also has himself. I haven't checked against the Japanese one, but I think my point stands regardless considering the rest.

• What's usually debated is the underlying motivator and/or thematic significance - something which I think wasn't being sufficiently reflected and sources don't generally comment on besides Kaworu having a genuine interest in Shinji. I understand this might not be readily apparent, but people absolutely interpret things very much focused on specific wording and the intended ambiguity of the text has to be preserved - see my previous points regarding the choices made by Khara themselves. I've discussed some of this just now with some translators, many the same ones in fact responsible for sources already used in this article elsewhere: they all agree that the word choice referencing Chronicle here is at the very least a stretch. The June interview, for instance, is undergoing re-translation - it was made by 4 chan and later a tumblr and has some serious problems. Let me give you an example. In the 1st June interview, there's a part that deals with Kaworu "clearing all of Shinji's complexes". This has been quoted, and argued again and again for him having some sort of healing effect on Shinji. Yet Anno makes no such insinuation, he's merely explaining why the character is an ideal(ized) Shinji. A corrected version of that quote:
  "Anno: But that is a boy. It's as if there was no womanly feel at all. That's because it's Shinji and one more Shinji. Because ideal Shinji appears it's no good to make him a female.
  - Ah, I see.
  Anno: [He is ideal Shinji] Because he is a character who has cleared all of Shinji's complexes."

• Japanese is a very, very ambiguous language, so we need to follow that trend when it comes to bringing material onto English. Technically "couple" means just a group of two people, sure, but with this wording it can too easily be interpreted one specific way despite the way the show invites multiple interpretations. This is barely mentioned except in the beginning, and then the analysis section doesn't even consider it, largely presents one interpretation and then the reception section largely focus on the people adhering to it. This becomes even more important when the Khara official translation has gone out of its way to correct problems in the old localizations, and used the milder "like and "grace" due to that same ambiguity, and their official translator has used Anno's own words to defend himself from fans attacking and threatening him for "erasing" things that were in some (yet not all) of the primitive 1990s English subtitles, and even some that was only present in fansubs. If Anno says there is no specific answer for interpretative questions, the article has to reflect this.

• The Asuka article doesn't quote material like Cardass, Everything You've Ever Dreamed, the EoE drafts, Chronicle talking about their relationship (even in the same pages quoted here) or anything like that for her or Rei's relationships with Shinji - nor should they, but this can use a fanbook to talk favourably about this relationship? Older mentions of their roles with Shinji were contained in a few short sentences were largely removed - despite more significant discussion, reception, and much wider space within the story, but now there should be extensive detailing for Kaworu's relationship? This needed to be brought closer to NPOV. Just look at the discussion above on this very talk page, or on Shinji's, or elsewhere. It's an old discussion. People debate everything about Evangelion and there's no certainty, by design. Certainly it's worth of consideration, but these have been reduced to a few sentences in the other articles and now here it's a good one third of it? I'm just trying to make things balanced again here, and I think those changes in general greatly improve the article overall, which was severely outdated. I'm open to discussion and would appreciate if other editors familiar with the material could give their opinion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@FelipeFritschF: I just pass quickly for a first impression, then I deepen this afternoon. The changes seem OK to me. Some refs are wrong and give error messages. We must fix them. I'm doubious about the juxtaposition of multiple sources, like CJAS.org and Anno's generic commentary on the series, which goes against our MoS and risks being original research. I'm not saying that the info is wrong, 'cause it looks totally accurate, but that the juxtaposition of sources must be editorially avoided in any case.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I've seen the article better, and it's a bit of a mess. Satsukawa's presentation is repeated twice; in "Voice" there are empty parentheses; Side: B is mentioned in one way, while the 2010 Porori cid is already present, and so on. I have to fix it better. This is a long post with little summary. I'll try to be more succinct, as there seems to be some typical Evageeks bias.

• OK on Anno. Anno handled the script, right? So his role is limited. I took that for granted, as the credits cite him as a writer. Damn.
• Quite right. Kaworu only proposes it.
• I didn't understand: "because it does not deal with Kaworu much". Well, we're talking about Kaworu here. But the conversation about human language is mentioned in my version.
• But look, I didn't say Kaworu is based on Ikuhara. I just mentioned what Ikuhara says in the interview, because it's a fan guess. NPOV is intact. On the name. I do not know. Anno's essay does not explicitly say this. Yes, 99% is actually the only character not named by Anno, but I wouldn't want to fall into a (mild) OR then.
• Never denied this. I wanted to summarize with just two articles. But, yes, citing the original tweets is better. But the matter should be summed up a bit, huh. Perhaps a reader who has not seen NGE would find it too verbose. I try to find a middle ground.
• The article doesn't deny it .. What was I supposed to do? I had to put "(laugh)" in the quote? I'm ironic, eh.
• The translation is the same, taken from Gwern.
• Let's try. Ask him for a direct translation, perhaps, and not a paraphrase.
• Um? The comparison does not hold up. There is also no way to respond to this, because it simply leaves you baffled. I followed the sources hand in hand. That's all. I simply reported what the sources reported, preferring these to a generic one: "Hates music in ANIMA". (Sic. Why capitalized? It is not an acronym). Edit for a more balanced edit.
• It seems a bit more verbose to me, but all in all it's okay. Nothing serious, only a few sentences can be summarized.
• Again? Secondary source. It doesn't contradict the show, so it's OK. I don't understand your point. That is, in the end nothing has changed. OK, but it seems useless to me.
• In fact I have not mentioned dojinshi, sir. I have quoted a few sentences from more reliable chapters and for things not at all controversial.

I need to fix the article. It will take me quite a while. --User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I answer, perhaps, to the rest later. Even if I don't understand why with Kaworu. However, I don't understand the meaning of some objections. A brief summa is good, anyway. For example. Drazen is an interpretation, EC is official. I just reported the sources. it is normal for Drazen to be treated as what it is: an interpretation. So? I have to make a lot of work here for the CopyEdit.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Kaworu's popularity is also ... Evangelion female fan called Sakura Mogami". The note does not have a specific page.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm so confused now. I can no longer understand the article, the sources, the number of pages, the templates.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ehm? About the Filmbook description: "seduced" is here. Captivated, fooled and confused are here too. We need the original Japanese. I have both Chinese and Italian translations, but not the original Japanese. Sob. We need to understand which of these meanings is in the original.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• What information on AAKN are you talking about, sorry?
• Yes, I used that translation, but I checked and you are right on Newtype 100%. It's not misinformation, but I guess the French publishers translated that passage questionably.
• I don't understand why to include Horn's essay. It doesn't seem relevant to me at all. That is. Why he compared Kaworu to Satan? There is no solipsism in NGE. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Well, as information there can be, however, I do not know, I find Horn's comment strange.
• "Technically" couple "means just a group of two people, sure, but with this wording it can too easily be interpreted one specific way despite the way the show invites multiple interpretations." You are the one to assume it, not the article. Speaking generally.
• The last point doesn't make much sense. I balanced them and they were harmonious. Comparisons make no sense and leave the time they find.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Staff however, also indicates to not have been expecting Kaworu to provoke strong impression of a sexual component, or for him to very popular, in the first place, and attribute their lack of attention to this to the lack of time when making the latter episodes[132], and even that Kaworu was not actually supposed to hold Shinji's hand, but this was actually an animation error.[133]" These also needs specific page numbers.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Episode director and animator Masayuki even refused to work on them and threatened to resign". This also need the exact page number. DO you have a scan or something?--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I understand both of us might not have enough time to edit this back and forth immediately, so I'll wait a while to address your responses and let you get to it first. I appreciate you're being civil, regardless. Some of this stuff might take a while for me to get back (like consulting the other guys first) anyway.FelipeFritschF (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well. Generally speaking, it seems to me that the problems were editorial. The refs, too long direct quotes, an entire paragraph repeated twice, broken notes or double references. It seems right to specify that the comment is from Kentaro, the information from "Side B" looks totally right, I agree to mention the direct tweets etc. Otherwise, again, your changes seem OK to me. I summarize only the thorny points:

1. References to worldcat do not have specific pages.
2. We need precise references for Robot Wars and for Anima. And the title "Anima" itself should be in lowercase characters. Japanese romanji did not have them, but it's Eva, not EVA, it's Nerv, not NERV, it's Shinseiki Evangelion, not Shinseiki EVANGELION, it's King Records and not KING RECORDS.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why to delete the word homosexual in the lead. And why remove the word homoerotic, which Anno uses, in creation. Anno revisioned the script, so, I was technically right, he is part of the writing process. Ogata tweets doesn't contraddict or state anything. Reminds me of this Evageeks article, which is bad now. I would change that too, but I don't understand why it doesn't log in or register. Bias upon bias can be found, with no good sense. The article takes a Side B pattern and believes it negates something, when in reality it doesn't. Usual biases from EvaGeeks. Please, don't edit the article anymore and wake up a little from sleep, because these biases to erase the evidence are bad for encyclopedias. I mean, both Wikipedia and Evageeks. The article will be reviewed by GOCE and as GA, and biases have no place here. I believe in good faith, but, fixed the translation error from Newtype 100% and a minstranslation on cello, the article is fine now.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Felipe asked me to lend a helping hand, so I'll answer to some stuff right now. I hope they'll be to his liking and explain some stuff.

• Anno wasn't deeply and intimately involved in writing the screenplays, but he did make sure that the final draft would be to his liking, which means that the final draft ends up showing his intentions re: characters quite well, even if he didn't write it per se. This of course also means that the earlier drafts can't be used to get insight into Anno's ideas, which admittedly is a bit sad, but we're going to have to live with it.

• And Kaworu proposing it is what Felipe meant-with the emphasis being on the fact Kaworu proposed it in an earlier draft, a proposal that subsequently got removed from following ones. Therefore, it's not very usual when discussing anything in-canon as it blatantly isn't canon and wasn't ever considered by Anno.

• Felipe was talking about how the interview wasn't about Kaworu much.

• If what Ikuhara says is simply a fan guess, then I doubt it has much reason to be in the article. Detail is nice, but too much detail is cumbersome and unnecessary in Wikipedia (for me at least) and the way you used Ikuhara's statement made it seem like you were using it to make a point of your own/to lead people toward certain conclusions, especially since Felipe pointed out Ikuhara was actually saying something a bit different.

• I'm afraid I don't quite understand your meaning here. I've also noticed you seem to have a tendency to not give general points, but rather speak in sentences meant to address certain points, but without clarifying what those points are, meaning others will have a hard time gauging your meaning. If you could cut down on that, it would be much appreciated. I and I'm sure some others as well would have an easier time understanding you then.

• Or mention that the interviewee laughed, i.e. may not have been entirely serious (which Tsurumaki (we are talking about him, right?) wasn't), so as to try to avoid potential confusion. Not to mention

• A lot depends on how the translation is used.

• I have nothing to say except that might be a good idea.

• The comparison does hold up, because if the other main characters of NGE don't have extensive, extra-detailed statements on their spin-off doings, there's no reason for Kaworu to have one either. If Shinji, the undisputable "MC" of NGE and MC of NTE, doesn't get a long description of what he was doing in ANIMA, then is there reason for Kaworu to have one? A few words that point out his role and character changes (compared to NGE/NTE) should suffice.

• Passing this one by.

• If we're discussing Takekuma's stuff here, then "doesn't contradict the show" doesn't really hold up. There's intentional ambiguity in a lot of NGE, and especially in Shinji's and Kaworu's relationship. We can argue that there's no reason to delete it, because it "doesn't contradict the show", but then we have to add an unofficial statement that seems included to lead people toward certain conclusions in for no good reasons other than "well, we don't think it contradicts the show", which isn't really a very good reason.

• His point was that AAKN is not a trustworthy source due what the site consists of, similar to how an extremely right-wing/left-wing news site isn't generally trustworthy due to what it consists of-meaning that while it'll hold some truthful information, the way it is presented and what info was chosen should be looked at.

• About the "seduced" business, I admit I don't have a good grasp of the language and therefore it might be a translation, but only depending on the context and I doubt "seduced" was what was originally meant. I also know who Felipe's speaking of and I can say I trust them in language-related discussions.

• Horn's idea was mentioned because it's a relatively famous piece of Eva analysis and it presents an interesting, different viewpoint to Kaworu than the usual ones. It's important to address the variety of reality. (I also have no idea how his comparing Kaworu and the Satan is a show of solipsism of all things-something that most of the time refers to the theory that only the self exists or can be known, for those not in the know.)

• For the "couple" thing, when you say those two are a couple to someone, they tend to assume the "couple" is two people having a romantic relationship, because most of the time that's what people mean by saying "couple", so the idea that Kaworu and Shinji having a romantic relationship being a potential misunderstanding is just something Felipe assumes is untrue, because it's something most people would assume.

• If "the last point" means Felipe's actual last point, then well, it's a good point-if the relationships of Asuka/Shinji and Rei/Shinji had less intense description than Kaworu/Shinji's relationship, then there's a bit of a problem, because Shinji's relationships with his two female battle comrades is described a lot more in the show than that of Kaworu's and Shinji's.

• I didn't know page numbers were a necessity-I've seen plenty of Wikipedia articles that didn't point to specific pages. Anyway, Felipe used legitimate sources (I can attest to that), so I see this as just a little bit of a nitpick. It would be nice to see some scans, yes, but seeing the official nature of the whole thing, there's really no larger reason to truly need them.

• ANIMA is ANIMA because that's the official name of the visual novel in Japanese.

• I don't think one should say "homosexual undertones" and "homoerotic undertones" is a better way to put it (I don't know why Felipe took that last one out) since it implies some potentially homosexual implications in-universe, but not that some people are engaging in something possibly homosexual.

As for your wider statements about bias, I must admit I find them troubling. Trust me, EvaGeeks is not a place of bias and multiple viewpoints are permitted (even the article you linked to is pointed out in its title to be a "theory"). All this talk about "bias" really sounds more like trying to think Kaworu and Shinji had a far more romantic relationship than they did (this goes for both the original canon and that of NTE) and that Kaworu somehow warrants far more extensive discussion than other characters who actually have an arguably larger importance and popularity than him. --Zusuchan (talk) 20:42, 13th February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't change much this time around. I'll answer in order to your questions here, not in the way it's ordered in the article proper. I think you might appreciate some other information I have.

• The problem is that the wording used necessarily leads to one conclusion and interpretation when we know, according to the creators themselves, that there is not supposed to be one and it is inherently ambiguous, and doesn't even reflect all of critic or fan consensus. You refer to Anno calling it homoerotic, but, first, Anno refers to Satsukawa's writing style for the drafts, not his own work or the final version of the character. You can refer to the drafts that way if you wish to, but that should not apply to the canon depiction of the character - the one in the final script. Please note that the second draft is also only credited to Satsukawa. You've saw yourself now how Anno had very little involvement in that. He did not write any of those scenes in either draft. He did not give those ideas to Satsukawa. Satsukawa took a relatively neutral, and by then immature, depiction of Kaworu and greatly expanded it - Sadamoto says it too, as I've noted, and then Anno rejected those.

• We've got the production process roughly down to:
  - Draft 1: Scriptwriter after getting Anno's outline
  - Draft 2: Scriptwriter after board meetings - he takes in suggestions from staff, but this is still not a consensus nor does it receive Anno's blessing, as he still has no direct involvement.
  - Definitive Draft: as present in Evangelion Original, this is the first one includes Anno's treatment of it, and after that he he actually approves it. Worth mentioning that it is very similar to the final Episode 24 script as aired.
  - Storyboard stage, which also gets Anno's treatments. There is a Storyboard Collection with those. It will get translated, eventually, but we have a lot of cool information from it. Here is an example, that clears a widely held misconception that Shinji tried to commit suicide.
  - Refined script sent to the seiyuu: this one doesn't seem to be published anywhere and it probably just adjusts things to flow better with the storyboards
  - Final script, as published on the DVDs.

• Those drafts are so early and detached from production they even contradict a lot of important plot details that would have been presented in the series 10 episodes earlier. Which is why you can't attach that stage to Anno so much. Satsukawa simply wrote this very early, on his own. I am not against their mention in the article, but giving it this much weight makes it seem like it was some hidden intention all along, which is far from the truth. The credits cite Anno as writer for the final script as they do for all episodes, except Episode 4. Which is also why I think it's undue weight to go into all this individual scene detail, and why I'd rather compensate with other details instead. Too bad we can't prove 100% that Satsukawa is this responsible for Kaworu, like being the only one not named by Anno as you mentioned.

• Worth mentioning that I do not blame you for thinking that. The primary source for this has been the June interview as translated in a literal Kaworu-dedicated tumblr. Hardly an impartial source. It has many translation problems, as I've mentioned, and it's hard to understand because even the English there is poorly written. There was additional context (including Sadamoto) clarifying this but it took quite a lot of digging to really reach a conclusion. We have found out about the Evangelion Original intros recently - turns out they were already in gwern's anthology for years, in a journal archival site. I am reasonably sure and gwern agrees with me that those were archived by EvaMonkey on his then university's archives - I have asked EM himself but he hasn't gotten back to me yet, as he's quite busy IRL. Alternatively, Xard and Reichu both have Evangelion Original and I'll see if they can check the pages for you. You might be interested to know that both the 1st June interview, the 2nd June interview, the Original scripts and more are being (re)translated for the near future. It will be interesting to see. Very nice insight into the creation process.

• Likewise, the incipit deals with reception, and the negative criticisms largely deal with the relationship on a thematic level - like the common interpretation of Kaworu as a fantasy or enabling of escapism. This was not initially included or reflected, but it is a significant piece of interpretation of his character and should be treated as much.. The only criticism that seems to be about homoeroticism proper seems to be Kenneth Lee's... and even so his criticism is that their relationship feels unbelievable, that it comes out of nowhere. The way it's written in the incipit feels like people are criticizing it because they see it as homoerotic, even though the other criticisms don't deal with that specific aspect at all. They don't all see the relationship as even homoerotic, and homoerotic themes is not the same as homosexuality, even if you get into the whole "what kind of love it is" discussion, or if there is any at all. You certainly know that some people assume Kaworu only cared about Shinji as an insight into humanity, or had that "agape" feeling for him. It varies. A lot. Say how people might apply "eros" to Asuka or "Philia" for Rei, instead. Not exactly my interpretation, but perfectly valid. I don't buy into the interpretation that Kaworu wanted to hurt Shinji, for instance, but you can make more of an argument that his nature as a character did... which is a viewpoint expressed in more than one criticism present here and even more that were not included. I think "presentation" is a good middle ground, because "tones" along sounds a bit weird.

• I thought the influence of the drafts was a relevant detail because it reflected that they did play a role in shaping the character. Particularly they end up making up for the space removed with the Ikuhara speculation. Same goes for the bit on Leliel.

• I do agree I kinda exaggerated on the Voice section's verbosity. I took off a bit of detail, as I think the "not meant to contrast" bit was inserted by someone else that didn't check it, as I couldn't find a specific comment to that on any source.

• The Tsurumaki joke has been reinserted with the interviewer's words still described as his. The CRC isn't exactly a guidebook so much as a production record, interviews are also a conversation and they'll include people being coy, joking, playing with the interviewer. You can't just insert anything from there. Anno in particular loves doing this. You can see how in the June interview the interviewer repeatedly tries to fish him for some big revelation and Anno keeps swerving to another subject. Here is another very amusing example. If I were to take this at face value, Anno has just made the characters to appeal to viewer's sexual preferences and there is nothing to these characters besides commercialism. But if you take a deeper look into it, he's only mentioning one aspect. I mean, Eva is also supposed to make money, so he isn't lying, but there are obviously other aspects. Which you'll find in other sources, including from Anno. You can also add in context. That MPEG interview was made in 1996, presumably during the mid-stages of the series (as those snippets of the episodes shown on screen are at the latest from Episode 12 or so), and Anno doesn't seem as depressed as he'd be later. You put that into context, you realize he's not giving you the full picture. Likewise, in that part of the CRC, they are not making a statement about what they intended with Kaworu... they're making a joke based on his characterization, almost mocking him, just like they joked that the entire point of the movie is to get Rei and Shinji together. That shouldn't be included in the Rei article, so it doesn't go here either. If one does not balance things out with each other you can easily get a very wrong idea. You need to understand what they're saying as I've mentioned the preceding Rei/Shinji context.

• I mean, yeah, the thing with Ikuhara is better expressed now, but I'm still against including fan speculation that is largely disproven by multiple sources. So, Ikuhara responds to a fan speculation, and denies it. Anno is teased about this (typical fan speculation) and denies it. The character designer gives extensive detailing, and never even mentions it. Nor do you find it even echoed in a single official source. So why include it, if we don't include other fan speculations, especially ones that have seemingly no bearing on the actual construction of the character? The whole "he's secretly his IRL lover" idea is something you get with a lot of fans... as I've exemplified with Asuka (also some surrounding Nadia's VA) - there are also theories regarding Rei, and for Kaworu you even have people speculating it around Miyazaki or Higuchi.

• About the usage of language in general. Let me give you an example, and this will apply to the Chinese film book and Japanese Chronicle translation as well. Both Chinese and Japanese are very ambiguous, high-context languages. One can't just take one out of 15 possible translations for a word if it doesn't fit the context or original intent... which is very mild and inconclusive, as the rest of the text. Kanemitsu also translated the 3.0 subtitle. Here he gives an example of how you can translate a word in an isolated context and say Asuka is outright telling Shinji she'll rape him in that movie. Yes, seriously. It might seem like that is a perfectly valid translation, being grammatically correct, and thus it should be included. But by taking context into account - including the rest of what's written, you need to go for other wording. It's necessary to be careful around paraphrases and the usage of words that in English are too loaded. You may think they aren't (and I imagine it might not be the case in Italian), but a standard English reader will interpret things much more specifically, hence why I changed the wording to more neutral descriptions. Again, all of that can *technically* be used in the Asuka or Rei articles, but it shouldn't for those same reasons. This isn't coming just from me, but from fluent Japanese and Chinese speakers.

• This is also why I changed the wording you used referencing Chronicle or Ishida. They're not quite saying what the article is saying. The Cut interview isn't a paraphrase either, I just inserted what he gave me and repeated his explanations. Same for the June interview. In the manga section as well. The official Viz release makes it even more mild (excessively so, in my opinion), Kaworu says "it will be proof you cared about me".

• Why use a paraphrase that's longer than the actual Bertschley quote? Either we make it a really smaller paraphrase or just smaller actual quote. I reinserted the whole quote, which actually has the same length as your edit... to be fair, the way he wrote it is really not helping us, the first part of the quote is him essentially saying the same thing in two separate sentences that follow one another.

• I think someone has the Film Books in Japanese but haven't gotten confirmation yet. I will update you on them if possible.

• Why? In one article details of extracanonical material were removed, in here there are a ton of unnecessary ones. It's fine not to have the other pages going into deep detail on Shinji having all those romantic scenes into other characters, that's fine, but then we shouldn't have the opposite here. I mention his appearance and basic details, just like the other articles. Additionally, this means that the additional paragraph in the Characterization and themes section isn't really extending the overall length of the article, because the very long description detailing the plot of a little known spin-off is removed.

• I'm not sure about Anima... It's stylized in all-caps in the official English release. "Angelic Days" is a name they came up with for the English release of the GoS 2 manga, and not used in the Japanese original (or even the other Western localizations, some even use "Iron Maiden 2nd"), but we use that name here, don't we? So I assume we should use the English market nomenclature too.

• Ogata's statement has been confirmed by three separate people and can be found in two independent places... but unless one of them gets published in a proper anime site or I find some sort of recording I guess it can't be included here, so I won't insist.

• I'll get the page numbers when possible. For now, you can take a look at those transcripts.

• Regarding Sakura Mogami - this is the entire manga series. The entire plot is this self-insert Eva fan dating "Kaworu" and obsessing over him. Her coworkers are "Fuyutsuki" and "Ritsuko". She cosplays Asuka and Rei and talks with her figures as if they're alive. Very amusing. Anyway, I think that means we don't need a page number. You can read the first 3 chapters here in Japanese. The entire series will get translated at some point, as well. Lots of fun, actually.

• Sorry if the article is confusing. Turns out there was some weird glitch when pasting it from my other sandbox.

• I just mentioned AAKN because I wanted to illustrate the problem with supplemental material, especially one that's pure fan-pandering. I know you othewise used it to say "his eyes are red." and such. Regardless, I wrote that before I had checked the actual page and saw there was nothing there.

• Horn's criticism is absolutely relevant as it primarily deals with a thematic criticism of Kaworu as an alien, unknowable entity, and his motivators as somewhat self-centered - this is a common view and absolutely has to be included. Even the previous edits noted in the incipit that critics thought he was hard to understand, inscrutable. That's not even including his (limited, but higher than most reviewers') level of authority. He even has an EvaGeeks account. Very interesting insights. I'd absolutely argue there is solipsism in NGE... but from the viewpoints of some, not all characters. Some people interpret the series' Instrumentality as being essentially that, for instance.

For things that weren't mentioned here:

• Made my insertions proper slightly shorter overall, save for Bertschley.

• Regarding the WorldCat references - are you sure you don't want to leave them there for now until I can get the pages?

• It's not an actual cat, so I think that needs to be mentioned.

• You added again that they play the cello and violin. Not only does Kaworu only propose this, he proposes *cello and piano*.

• I re-added the "destined to die at Shinji's" hands bit, again also making up for the removed Ikuhara mention. Or was that a mistake?

• "and the similarly neutral au (会う) for "meet"." This is relevant because you can use another "逢う" instead, which has a far more intimate connotation. It has also been argued in the past, because the Chinese film book uses it and some people - not knowing or omitting that it was in Chinese - which as far as I can tell doesn't have the other kanji (or rather, hanzi) and doesn't make that distinction, used it as evidence for the language not being actually ambiguous, even though the script, subtitles, storyboards and quotes in others sources in Japanese all use 会う. Plus it's just a small sentence that presents more important informaton.

• I don't know why you removed Anno's quotes from there. It's the creator directly commenting on his intended ambiguity

• Likewise for the additional criticisms and contextualization of the queer interpretation... Drazen in particular goes into detail into this to explain his own criticism. It's still less than half as much text as the former. Loveridge makes a positive review and a negative one seems to indicate to me the whole "mixed reception" thing.

• Kraiser is mentioned as an authoritative source elsewhere in the article. If he's okay for mentioning something positive, he should be okay for saying something mixed as well.

• I reiterate on changing to quote to Ishida instead of using Ikuhara twice, if there's no reason to disagree.

• I added the ADV collection itself as a source. EvaMonkey has an article on it. Not sure about this one as it's a bonus material inside this collection. You can remove it if you think it's not up to muster.

• I wanted to get a picture of Ishida in there but it's proving difficult to find one that can actually be allowed on Wikipedia. Bummer.

And, respectfully, you should see the stuff people sometimes want to write on the fan wikis - look at the stuff I mentioned earlier about Asuka being pregnant or being based on Anno's wife. The articles on the wikis all get reviewed by a good 5-10 people with deep knowledge of Evangelion and professional ability in Japanese. Often the people that you are indirectly quoting, because they made the translations originally years ago. Several fans dislike that we don't reflect their fan theories there and consider it bias. I am sure people will look at the article and consider it biased, whether it is or not. I get complaints that I don't say Shinji had sex with Asuka in Episode 15 almost once a month Because it just so happens that there is a fan theory video on YouTube saying they did, and it has almost one million views. And then there is a Spanish translation of that one with over 500 thousand, and those fans also want it on the English wikis - I'll get back to this. The Side B comparison, for instance, is merely there to illustrate one official source restating the obvious, that is to say, saying Shinji and X are friends is something pretty much nobody will disagree with, but this is contrasted with the wilder claims people will make, usually based on spin-off material or misattributed claims by third parties - not that I am accusing you of doing so, but this is something that commonly happens in fan discussion and we wish to clear myths. I pointed you out that one with Shinji commiting suicide before.

The death threats myth was here for years after we had specific articles dealing with it. Wikipedia here has had several of those still present for years, and it is mostly because people just don't pay as much attention to it or read it as much. I have access to the view data on all three (I can post it if you're curious) and it's about 10% as much overall. Even so, it has many times more traffic than in other languages - in my experience many fans native to fandoms speaking other languages just read the wikis in English or their own fansites. Perhaps even more surprisingly, the wikis in Japanese are generally so devoid of material that many Japanese fans refer to material written in English. The views there are about twice as much as on English Wikipedia, which means it's on average slightly less than in either English fan wiki. I can't verify the Japanese fan wiki, unfortunately - FANDOM has removed the public data in an update a few months ago. So you should expect more disputes and contributions from the getgo, not just from me. But please don't think I am trying to discourage your work - it's commendable, but I do think it needs adjustments, and I am also attempting to improve the Eva articles here, even though they are not my focus. You know I made improvements to the other articles as well. The thing is that the Wikipedia review process is a heuristic. You can be perfectly in alignment with the MOS and make it concise and easy to understand, and yet a reviewer that does not understand the subject well enough might not be able to tell any problems with the content itself.

Take care. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Evangelion Original pages - the text is from their intros/forewords. There is an overall intro for the book (those are the links from the WebCitation source) little intro for each episode (not saying anything new as usual), and pages are numbered as spreads. So Episode 1 begins with #1-2, then #1-4, #1-6 and so on, but the overall intros don't have them. Some pics here. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@FelipeFritschF: I wanted to buy the Originals a few months ago, but I still don't have enough money to spare. But why should we mention them in the notes? I think reporting that the two drafts were written by Satsukawa and that Anno then refined the script is enough. There is no need for a source, it's not a controversial info IMHO. I'll read the rest.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zusuchan:

• This has been known for many years. Simply, the previous text stated that "Anno had written the drafts with Satsukawa", without specifying that he revised them, but that the great work is of the writer. Specifying is a must, and in fact, I left it. My mistake not to specify the thing.
• I think you did not read well. The paragraph is called Conception. We have to report the whole creative process.
• I replied by telling the truth. We reported just the part about Kaworu. There's something that is not clear to you?
• But even no. The text is reported for what Ikuhara says, and that's all. It can be filed, it can be written better, it can be shortened. Although I don't understand why three lines of text shouldn't be here. What exactly should I have made infer? It hasn't been explained to me.
• Exactly where? I've always been answered for months about things I haven't said, arguments I haven't made, deductions I haven't reported, and details I haven't even mentioned. I'm not saying that Felipe always does, but arguing again with the same terms is annoying.
• The comparison was made by Felipe and not me. I am waiting for a CE. Details are different because the sources are different. The Gainax site for Asuka and Rei has descriptions, but for Kaworu, unfortunately, they almost always focus on the relationship with Shinji. The reviews, too. It's not my fault. I've never been against shortening, and you can see that in the GA reviews of the other articles. I just need to report what the source says, at least in the first time. With copyediting and time, the text will be refined, as in any other article I have written here. Only here was I read a WoT and editorially wrong changes even before a total CE.
• Ok.
• What exact conclusion are you talking about, excuse me? You read it. Not me. I reported the fact. Point. I'm sorry, but it's not controversial information. It is you who see conclusions.
• Eh. Thank you. I didn't get it, look. Thank you for your explanation.
• What linguistic discussion? I reported the term and said it has several meanings. We picked one (captivated), and that's OK.
• I was referring to the solipsism explained in the original novel. I didn't say the confrontation was solipsistic, sir. And in fact, I left the text, because I'm perfectly aware of who Horn is, thank you, and I trust his analysis.
• Couple is a neutral term, in theory. I have not chosen this term with the meaning mentioned here. You hire it. What do you fear?
• See above. Sorry, but sources, interviewers, and reviewers tend to focus on this. And I presented the rest in a balanced manner. We can do better? Yes. Definitely yes.
• Thank you. You attested that are legitimate sources; I did not know. The exact pages however are required, for verifiability, or the absence must be reported in the template. Verifiability would be a huge problem for a GA nomination. At least the chapter title is required. At least for most of them.
• Japanese write everything in Latin capital letters because they rarely use the lower case. As I said, the uppercase is necessary for acronyms. We should also report EVANGELION, following this logic, but this is not the case, just because "it is official".
• It seems a useless discussion. Homoerotic, homosexual. Choose what you want, write "possible" if you want, but completely deleting it is absurd.
• No. Listen. Let's say things clearly. First, short point. EvaGeeks Wiki is dead (Anyway, a Wiki doesn't have to report all points of view, just the most reliable ones. I'm speaking generally, eh). I left things as they are reported in the sources, apart from two translation errors. The fact that a word like "homosexual" has been deleted from the lead makes me think the exact opposite. It makes me worry. Anno left the interpretation to the viewer. I reported this thing. Getting to the point where those who report this are accused of trying to make the reader deduce things when it's vice versa, is absurd. Felipe once mentioned Tumblr to me, when I don't even have it. He told me that I wanted to demonstrate the canonicity of a couple when I am completely out of the discussion. It is you who see these things. I am completely foreign to the thing and the fandom, especially Anglophone. Felipe interpreted things with the eyes of someone from the Anglophone fandom and its controversies and applied them to me, but he was wrong. The discussion a few months ago sounded something like this:

"So, in this videog-" "Do you assume that videogames are canonical?" "No. Well. Let's talk about the original show. So, this book-" "Do you want to prove your ship is canonical? Stuff from Tumblr. You're leading the reader". I just hope it won't happen again. Waiting for the copyediting, good evening.User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Now.

• It is not just a question of Anno and its definition in Zankoku collection. The homoerotic tones are evident throughout the episode, it's not something controversial. As above. Choose between homoerotic or homosexual or the proper explanation, but don't delete things.
• I'm collecting everything. Be patient. I'm the type who, until he has at least a scan of the book on hand, doesn't mention things, or at least I try to be. I have the End of Eva storyboard collection and I am very aware of the various myths, but I don't have the Originals and the SCs yet.
• I have yet to understand where you see this "hidden intention". The controversies of the EvaGeeks fandom do not interest me.
• For thinking what, sorry? But look, I have the original scans and the original text. Look, I knew the intro of Original, I know the whole page of Gwern, but I didn't use it because it didn't seem like a reliable site. Anyway, next month I will also buy Evangelion Original. For the CoVID, I have not worked anymore, so if Reichu gives us the pages before, fine, otherwise we can do it ourselves by waiting.
• Nothing to say about this. Although we don't have to report all points of view. People who, on the one hand, insist on denying a homoerotic tone between Shinji and Kaworu and people who, on the other hand, attach things to the relationship that are not present are a big problem in English-speaking fandom. I speak in general, huh.
• Because it was about Leliel and I had already briefly mentioned it, but I left it.
• Yeah.
• So? I don't understand where this is headed. Tsurumaki said that and that's all. The assumptions of others must not interest Wikipedia. Yes, we have to present it with neutrality, but people will always try to extrapolate things. For vaccines, for science, for video games, for religion. Following this logic, the entire Wikipedia should stop mentioning stuff because everyone uses bias and misunderstands the content, but IMHO that's not the way.
• What? People thinking that he's secretly his IRL lover? Never heard of this. Do you see? It is you who read things that I don't even know because I'm not in the English fandom or just casually (I'm on EvaGeeks too).
• I reported one of the possible meanings of the Chinese text and the one used in the Italian translation. That's all. Do we have to start long discussions about each interview we mention and each term at this point? No, we don't have to. OK. Let's discuss. Maybe it's good for Wikipedia. But I still understand why British fans only argue about Kaworu and generate controversy over nothing only about Kaworu.
• Where exactly? I have the Japanese text (and even a French translation!) of the whole EC magazine. See the point above. Forget it.
• They tell me to do this in all the GA reviews.
• OK.
• So? Each item is different.
• Ehm? I didn't say that we should call it "Evangelion (something else)", but "Evangelion Anima". Is there anything in the style manual about the total uppercase text for titles?
• Thank you.
• Try with the name of the chapter, at least for the most significant appearance for the article.
• Don't worry. I fixed it.
• As above.
• As above. Yeah, but solipsism is wrong, right? Well. That's another question. I trust in Horn, as I said. I read for years his messages in the EML, and he was competent.
• Ok.
• We can wait.
• I agree. I found something about the first draft in Schizo, too.
• Ah. You are right. In all of this, I didn't even realize I had added the same thing. Oops.
• I do not understand. Do you mean the quote box?
• Another case of a controversy I knew nothing about. In any case, it does not seem worthy of mention, since the sources speak only of the English controversies about "suki" and more. Sorry for the repetition, but anglophone fandom is a mess.
• Because it doesn't talk about Kaworu. He talks about something else.
• OK.
• He is not reliable; or, at least, the blog is not. The site is a blog from WordPress. Should be completely deleted, even when he's mentioning something positive.
• No. What exactly does Ishida say about Kaworu's "reception" in the text? Nothing.
• EvaMonkey has only one image of this. A little empty as a source.
• Me too, but it seems that there's nothing here. I want to search for something about Instagram as for Ogata.

I will not even respond to the last part of that article and on EvaGeeks. We are talking about Wikipedia, so I have no theory about Eva, so I don't accuse anyone of anything because it doesn't correspond to my eventual "theories". Ah. In fact, it is obvious that they are friends. Then? What contradiction are you talking about? What statements are you talking about? Stop assuming things about me. Again. I'm almost completely out of EvaGeeks, I'm almost out of words that English fan uses. Anyway, I'm the one who took the myth of the letters away. Again, see the Italian End of Eva article. Modestly, I have some knowledge of Evangelion too. Good evening. I left the ambiguity of the original texts and was accused with delusions of persecution. Help me with the Japanese translations, help me with the English, since I'm not a native speaker, help me make the text more concise, but don't make assumptions about me. As I said in April, let's move on, English fandom. Thank you.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I just want to say I appreciate the discussion and I apologize if this is becoming tiring. Now I understand you are not disagreeing with all my points but I want to illustrate some stuff regardless, as I nonetheless find it interesting to discuss. Also, I'm really sorry about Blockio, he's acting extremely irascibly and seems to be misinterpreting you. I am not at all trying to make you stop editing or helping with things:

• It is known to some people and not to many others. I'm not sure if you realize that the English Wikipedia articles have remained mostly the same for almost 10 years, their talk pages also. The fan wikis still get a lot more edits than here, even though they are far more complete - which also means there's less of a need for changes to actually be made. We're talking well over 1000 articles already. And like I said, they have some 8-10 times more views and editors - even if you account for the Wikipedians here that just do maintenance/formatting work or bots on the whole wiki. I am taking some time to answer you because I'm talking with these people and they not focused in here, which just doesn't get as much attention. People don't go here much because Wikipedia is simply not the place where people go for in-depth information of fiction, and for the most part it's not even supposed to be, because it doesn't fit the notability criteria. No need for an article about individual Eva units in spin-offs here, for instance. I am still glad for your work here, but it's not people's focus, which is why it was in such a sorry state for so long. The wikis are still not at the same level of activity we once were because there simply isn't that much stuff left to insert. Every now and then new interviews and material surface. Plus I am also writing for other people that might be interested in the subject and need clarification, or want to chip in the discussion. Whole point of an encyclopedia. It will, naturally, blow up again when 3.0+1.0 gets released.

• Certainly, but I'm arguing that it is undue weight to describe individual scenes from both drafts that did not make it to the final. Hence why I instead made a point about it influencing it later, which was later omitted. The stuff mentioned before was rejected, the ones I put in was reutilized later. This is far more relevant for understanding the evolution of the character than explicating what happens in a rejected draft - and even so only the piano playing really gets referenced. Same for Tsurumaki making a joke. It's not a factual statement. It's not something that actually informed them creating the character. It's just not relevant. It's a joke made by an interviewer that Tsurumaki joined on - and you are still attributing the interviewer's statements to Tsurumaki. There are more interesting and relevant details from the CRC that can be inserted instead. Should we should say Higuchi compared Mari to Kaworu? Or that Enokido made a metaphor that he was being stabbed by him? All of those details are in the CRC, but none of these details are actually relevant to his character, so a joke that is not actually describing anything can't be included because it isn't actually providing information. So instead I've added details that are actually pertinent.

• I'm including Evangelion Original because they give us specific insight into the production process (I even put the reference in "production process"). If we claim that the rejection of the drafts followed the usual production process, then there should be some source for how the production process actually is. You are right that only Original III is really needed though, after all they say pretty much the same thing and III includes ep 24.

• And I am against its inclusion because it's fan speculation that finds no bearing in sources, denied by Anno who even gives a fairly long explanation linking baths to his experience growing up in the countryside and goes into detail about how casual it is for him, and even Ikuhara doesn't really believe in it, having been asked in a fanservice book. So why include it, if it has had no actual impact? It's even written as "may have been the model". Well, Asuka may have been based on Moyoco. Asuka may be pregnant. Even her voice actress said her final lines refers to morning sickness (one of them anyway...). I think all of these are too close to OR. So instead I've written something that actually has confirmed importance to his character.

• Naturally, because of the way marketing works. All characters turn into overly commercial versions of themselves. So you have a lot more outlandish romantic or erotic merch for Kaworu, whereas Asuka or Rei's stuff with Shinji gets treated differently. Asuka becomes a lovestruck tsundere, Rei becomes an actual kuudere, or a completely outgoing type, and Shinji is formatted into a regular shounen hero. So Kaworu becomes a complete yaoi bishounen seducer.... because that's what a lot of fans wish, not the more nuanced character he is in canon, same goes for the other characters. SIRP is a good example. Kaworu's barely present in the overall game, but gets a bonus disk where it's pretty much just him and Shinji. But accounting for that, he has about as much material as any of the other 6 options (plus a bunch of endings that involve no relationships) and 90% of the game ignores him completely. In the SIRP manga, he's very much a walking yaoi fanservice machine and completely dominates the one volume he shows up in (out of 18) and there are lots of rather... unsavoury jokes around it, then you have the whole "asuka and rei team up" stuff... and then he completely disappears from the story altogether. The type of fan that gravitates to that then just loses all interest because they're largely interested in one character. In fact, there were complaints from those fans and a few years later an omake actually made fun of the fans complaining that Kaworu completely dissapeared, so he makes another outlandish appearance.. in two pages. Gainax/Khara knows how to market to those, but they're not the only type of fan. Mana also shows up in that manga almost exactly the same. Gainax/Khara, and anime producers in general, know that individual character fans have different profiles. Why, for instance, did they bother releasing the rejected drafts to June and they made such an impact with Kaworu, yet Asuka fans don't really care about Bridal Veil being used as basis for Ep 22's Director's Cut, that just happened to get mentioned there because Anno read it, despite the way it got used to retcon Asuka's feelings? Which is also why ISRP itself is otherwise just one endless ecchi comedy. Asuka and Rei dominate these materials and even so they don't market them in an exclusionary manner, because there's no need to. People know they'll be there and they'll get teased to hell an beyond, but Kaworu might not be there at all or get a minor appearance. There's a higher probability that Kaworu fans will not buy something if he's not front and center. The licenced doujin anthologies do the same - there's one for just him, but he's barely in the dozens of other ones that feature other pairings (erotically, even), if at all, because Rei, Asuka, Misato, Maya fans etc act differently. I have come across many people that watch Episode 24 exclusively and ignore the rest of the series. I have seen episode guides telling people to avoid the rest of the series.

• Nonetheless, the reason I'm arguing for it is because it's not standardized to the other articles, the way it's represented in Gainax marketing isn't very relevant. The other articles had removed even very short descriptions for the other characters when they have a much larger role in those spin-offs that are also much more relevant overall. It's an enormous amount of detail for something that doesn't have a lot of relevance. I am willing to wage more people read Retake, a fan-made doujin, than the most of the spin-offs you mentioned, combined. Let's see how the relevant section is in the Asuka and Rei article, which you and I have both edited:

A similar version of events can be found in Neon Genesis Evangelion: Shinji Ikari Raising Project,[76] Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days[77] and the parody series Petit Eva: Evangelion@School,[78][79] where she behaves like a sister towards Shinji.[80] In Neon Genesis Evangelion: Girlfriend of Steel 2nd Asuka openly conflicts with Rei Ayanami to contend for Shinji's romantic attentions.[81] In Neon Genesis Evangelion: ANIMA, Asuka is older, more stable and mature, having developed a strong friendship with Shinji and even Rei. Asuka merges with her Eva unit turning into a hybrid. She also appears in the crossover Transformers x Evangelion, in the video games based on the original animated series and media not related to the Evangelion franchise, including Monster Strike,[88] Super Robot Wars,[89] Tales of Zestiria,[90] Puzzle & Dragons,[91] Keri hime sweets, Summons Board,[92][93] Puyopuyo!! Quest[94] and in an official Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion cross-over episode.[95] In the Super Robot Wars franchise, she butts heads with Kouji Kabuto, the pilot of Mazinger Z and Mazinkaiser. It is also implied that she developed crushes on famous heroes such as Char Aznable (in the guise of Quattro Bageena) and Amuro Ray, but proves jealous of Shinji, who crushes for Lynn Minmay of the Macross franchise.[96]

• I joined the half-paragraphs, as the Asuka article has these spread out, the first after the part dealing with the alternate world in ep 26, and another paragraph dealing with the manga, which she is in for 80% of the time. I took the liberty to reorder these around to be like in the Rei article. Regardless, a short, concise description. Very fine. In the Rei article:

"An outgoing Rei is featured in some Neon Genesis Evangelion spin-offs, such as Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days, set in the alternate reality of the last episode.[62] In the original web anime series Petit Eva: Evangelion@School, a parody of the original animated series, three Ayanami sisters are presented. The eldest, Ayanami, is diligent and introverted;[63] the second, Supone, is sport oriented and extroverted;[64] and the younger, Chibinami, is a four years old girl with a passion for soft toys.[65] In Neon Genesis Evangelion: ANIMA, set three years after End of Evangelion in an alternate scenario, several Rei appear; Rei Troi, pilot of an Eva named Evangelion Unit-02 Type II Allegorica,[66] Rei Quatre, Rei Cinq and the seven-year-old version Rei Six, all of them pilots of Evangelion-0.0 units.[67] In 2001, Broccoli released a simulation game entitled Neon Genesis Evangelion: Ayanami Raising Project, in which the player takes on the task of looking after Rei. In addition to various video games based on the original animated series, Rei has appeared in media not related to the Evangelion franchise, such as Monster Strike,[68] Super Robot Wars,[69] Tales of Zestiria,[70] Puzzle & Dragons,[71] Keri hime sweets, Summons Board,[72][73] Puyopuyo!! Quest,[74] Line Rangers,[75] Unison,[76] MapleStory,[77][78] Valkyrie Connect,[79][80] Ragnarok Online,[81][82] The Battle Cats[83] and in an official Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion crossover episode.[84]"

• About the same length as before, but in a single paragraph. Concise descriptions. Again, very nice. Now, let's look at the Kaworu article as it is."After the conclusion of Neon Genesis Evangelion's first airing, a self-parody audio track written by Anno called After the End was released, in which the characters of the series, played by their original voice actors, jokingly discuss and prepare in bulk a new ending just before the deadline of the production schedule, breaking the fourth wall. Kaworu appears; when Asuka calls him "homoboy", he tells her, "I wish you wouldn't make statements when you lack evidence for them." Nagisa, along with Eva's other pilots, joins a super sentai-style superhero group named by Asuka as Shin sentai Evangelion.[94] In the movie Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death and Rebirth (1997) there are sequences in which four children from the third middle school of the city of Tokyo-2, with their respective instruments, practice a string quartet in the school's auditorium. Among the four there is the violinist, who looks like Kaworu; according to what is indicated by the superimposed writings, however, the event would take place eighteen months before his appearance in Tokyo-3. From the script, it is clear that, despite the similarity with the protagonists of the series, the four children should still be interpreted as actors of an imaginary sequence.[95] In the following film, Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion (1997), the souls of all humanity unite into one collective consciousness, and Shinji, during a process named Instrumentality of Mankind, symbolically argues with Kaworu and Rei Ayanami.[96] Akira Ishida said that the Kaworu who appears in The End is not real, nor is he concretely present;[27] during the feature film he and Rei say they represent the "hope that people will one day be able to understand each other".[97][98]

The character appears in video games dedicated to Neon Genesis Evangelion. In Neon Genesis Evangelion: Girlfriend of Steel 2nd, as in the original series, he has a close relationship with Shinji.i[99] Among the scenarios involving the two boys there is a scene in which they play the cello and the violin together; in another scenario Kaworu kisses Shinji on the lips.[100] In the video game Neon Genesis Evangelion 2 Kaworu feels a deep feeling of love towards Shinji, and, having little interest in the female sex, prefers to have a romantic relationship with him, avoiding any other bond.[101] In Neon Genesis Evangelion: Shinji Ikari Raising Project the player has the opportunity to make him Shinji's best friend and to start a romantic relationship between them;[102][103] he is brought up to Shinji by the will of Dr. Ritsuko Akagi.[104] He also appears in the manga Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days; in the manga it is revealed that Kaworu met, even before meeting Shinji, his father Gendo, at the time a young man with great problems of self-esteem and social interaction, without having changed his appearance in the slightest.[105] In the parodistic series Petit Eva: Evangelion@School he is a particularly popular student among the students of his school, the third municipal academy "Nerv" of Tokyo-3, and often demonstrates that he wants to fiercely protect Shinji, whome he loves.[106]

In the manga Evangelion - Detective Shinji Ikari, written by Takumi Yoshimura, Ryōji Kaji and Kaworu are portrayed as two private investigators to whom Shinji is forced to turn;[107] in this alternate universe Nagisa is presented as his new classmate, and he ends up investigating with him a case.[108] In Neon Genesis Evangelion: Campus Apocalypse his personality is relatively similar to that of the original series.[109] Kaworu, at the beginning of the manga, is seen by Shinji near a vending machine running away from the scene of a violent explosion along with Rei Ayanami, with whom he has an unspecified bond. On that occasion, Ikari encounters an unspecified gem for the first time, which he brings with him the following day. Nagisa, on the same day, introduces herself as her new classmate at the Nerv Academy. LIke the original series, he is immediately showed great interest in him, making him uncomfortable.[110] Shinji, involved in a battle of Kaworu and Rei against an Angel named Ramiel,[111] ends up fighting as guardian Shemuhaza at his side against the Angels,[112][113] here depicted as creatures who take possession of the bodies of deceased people for try to obtain gems called "cores", necessary for the survival of Yggdrasil, the tree on which the balance between the various dimensions of reality rests. Ikari, in one chapter, spies on him and Rei in a moment of intimacy, feeling a certain jealousy, and then remembers having already met Kaworu as a child.[114][115] Kaworu and Shinji eventually fight together in an attempt to save Ayanami.[116] Kaworu is one of the main characters of a pachinko entitled CR Shinseiki Evangelion: Saigo no shisha (ＣＲ新世紀エヴァンゲリオン ～最後のシ者～, "CR Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Last Messanger"), released in Japan in April 2009.[117] During the game Nagisa intervenes during Operation Yashima against Ramiel with his Eva-04.[118] In addition to various video games based on the original animated series, Kaworu has appeared in media not related to the Evangelion franchise, such as Million Arthur,[119] Hortensia Saga,[120] Keri hime sweets, Summons Board,[121][122] Divine Gate,[123] Monster Strike,[124] Final Gear,[125] Puzzle & Dragons,[126] and Puyopuyo!! Quest.[127] Kaworu briefly assists Shinji in Neon Genesis Evangelion: ANIMA, which also features a "Dark Kaworu" who hates humans and hates music;[128] he is also present in the popular cross-over franchise Super Robot Wars.[129] "

• According to Notepad++, it's 1333 characters for Asuka, 1815 for Rei, totalling 3148, with formatting not applied. The Kaworu section has 5608. That's almost twice as many as Rei and Asuka put together, or over four times as much material as Asuka, even in spin-offs that are pretty much all about her like Angelic Days. Whereas Kaworu has smaller participatons in far less relevant material. You've also made an entire separate section for Sadamoto's manga that is also longer than the paragraphs for Rei and Asuka's appearances put together. Those passed GA, and that's fine because they did follow standards. I highly doubt giving this much weight and detail to spin-offs will pass here. Remember WP:SS. It's undue weight also, it doesn't matter that the Kaworu descriptors give it more attention, that's just how marketing treats him, even when he actually has less material. So, again, I standardized them to be short, concise mentions of their interpretations, and added the SIRP manga and Piko Piko.

• I was just illustrating my point about the use of translations. Also, you can't use an Italian translation of what Sadamoto says in another interview to inform what he says in Japanese. Again, the official English release uses an even milder (care about me). In context, Shinji even wonders right afterwards why people get close to others.

• I'm not removing the queer interpretation altogether, I'm just putting it into context and balancing it. You might not think so, but consider this: most of that material was made around the Netflix release, which meant that for a while it was in the interest of these sites to make it into a discussion, even if they never heard about Eva before or didn't consider it some sort of major case of queer representation before... because it wasn't. But it's easy for them to get on the bandwagon and report fan-made subtitles as official. Look at the Vox article making many errors in fact checking. It's probably the most well-read article on the issue, having gotten a comment from Kanemitsu and all, but they even had to be corrected by the EvaGeeks Twitter account (!) because the random writer seeking clicks didn't know or didn't care that he was basing himself off a pre-2000 fan-me subtitle. I recommend you read this article to get a notion of Vox's questionable history with "hot-button" topics. Look at all the people making basic mistakes about the show at that time. "The Kaworu episodes", in plural. "Shinji finally confesses to Kaworu", as if this was some long romantic story arc in a yaoi anime. Some even say Kaworu is the protagonist. One of the sources mentioned here says that Kaworu is "implied to be in love with Shinji midway through the series", despite him appearing only in episode 24 out of 26, near the end. And even worse, "Asuka and Rei were also implied to be attracted to one another, as well as potentially having romantic feelings for each other." Certainly I don't need to explain to you how wrong that is. It seems pretty obvious to me that this author has very likely based himself out of quick research and probably even merch, if he watched the show at all. Unfortunately, sourcing in Wikipedia is also a heuristic, just like the review process is. Sites with clickbait articles or explicit political goals aren't exactly neutral. They can be included, but non-neutral sources should be counterbalanced, especially when there is a controversy. This is also why I moved one mention of Chronicle earlier when it was responding a criticism, as per WP:STRUCTURE. You initially included a negative view on it from Lee, but he's not talking about the same subject as the claims made from pride.com et al, it's more a criticism of the characterization itself. That "implausible" argument Lee mentions is what leads some people to consider Kaworu as manipulative, for instance, however it looks like Lee is criticising the mere presence of those themes - though I think his phrasing is unfortunate at best, the rest of the paragraph makes it clear what his problem with it is, so I though it'd be better to cut dowwn on it a little and make it clearer. It may not look like it, but knowing people that actually live in Japan and are well familiar with their media landscape, I can tell you they find it almost hilarious that writers in Western outlets project their experience of media in the West to the Japanese experience. The native Japanese I've talked it with find it offensive Anglo cultural imperialism, and even a exceptional claim! I remember tons of comments by people pissed off at "Americans pushing their views" when Japanese media reported on the Netflix debacle. So I shortly contextualized it in order to allow the reader to understand things in proper context.

• Let me get you one example of a writer's self described credentials in your first revision of the rewritten article, in an article called "How I Stopped Worrying and Loved the Kaworu": "Everyone's favourite art loving, toy collecting nonbinary idiot." So this guy gets a job in some media site and at first glance he's "published" so he's reliable... well, except he's still just some guy writing in a random site and it's basically an ode to his favourite character, and he is lucky enough to get media exposure. Maybe if he knew what he were talking about he'd know that there's nothing bold about anything yaoi-esque (or as Drazen says, pseudo-gay) in Japanese media in 1996 - which is why I included a bunch of sources just mentioning this, and even trimmed it down again later. This was just the most egregious example, so I removed just that one. CBR isn't much better these days, but they are emanating one popular interpretation, so I think it can be included, and at least it is held to some (very low) standard. Many of the popular analysis you'll see over time, analysing Eva in general, barely deal with Kaworu, if at all, as he's still a minor character in the grand scheme of things. You certainly had to dig for these for the other articles, and it gets even more marked in fan-made analysis - though they are not "reliable" they are far more well read/watched and influential than most random writers in some generic media site. Remember those silly theory videos I mentioned? They have hundreds of thousands or even millions of views, yet a similar theory taking Kaworu as presented in here is limited specific places and usually around the time when it got specific attention. Often people won't even talk about him. Crandol, for instance, is one guy I have seen people linking to dozens of times, and he has a negative interpretation based on the fantasy aspect, yet I had never even heard of "non-productive.com" or Nate Schnoover before. Technically they are both "reliable" sources, but please consider WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and who is actually representing a common view - I'll get back to this later.

• They are not the same. Like I said, not all critics even see it that way. If you want to reflect critic reception, you need to reflect what they're actually criticising. The way the incipit is written makes it look they are saying it's bad because it's a homosexual relationship... which for that matter takes one interpretation as the only one. You know Lee criticizes it on other grounds, so does Drazen etc. Too bad about Mamerto, but I think you can take him into account just to get a perspective. And you even have staff saying they underestimated any homoerotic interpretation while actually making the episode. So if this isn't strictly determined as authorial intent, and the creators say everything is supposed to be ambiguous regardless, you can't take it as a fact. This harkens back to my point earlier about Japanese reception of the debate. Just "undertones" alone or "presentation" makes it sufficiently neutral and reflects the diversity of negative criticism. Regardless, I am not removing it from the article entirely at all, just the incipit, as that inherently gives more weight to one interpretation. It's still in conception, analysis and reception.

• Well, okay about Bertschley. Too bad about the way he writes, again. I'd like to perhaps make a shorter paraphrase but I'm not sure how to convey it. Then again currently it's mostly "he says that X and "Y"" instead of simply quoting "X" and "Y".

• Regarding Anima: no, MOS:TITLE seems to indicate it should be just "Anima", as there is an example from an originally all-caps source that should be re-formatted. So I've edited that in the other articles to just Anima as well.

• Regarding "au". It's a handful of words, and even if you haven't seen as much discussion on it, it's still relevant to the point. I can add the script as source because it's there, I guess.

• No, but he's taking about the show in general. He'll rarely if ever go into very specific details. So we make a point about ambiguity, what's wrong from including a short mention from the creator dealing with it? I made it shorter, regardless.

• The short doujin in June is not about Kaworu or Shinji, which would be natural assumption the way it's writen. No reason to include it, even if you were to mention it's about Gendo and Fuyutsuki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelipeFritschF (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kraiser is mentioned elsewhere in the article. He's used in reference #97. Per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." If Kraiser, writing for IGN, an independent publication, is acceptable in the article for one thing, he can be considered reliable for his interpretation in his own site too.

• Problem being the Ikuhara quote is repeated, too. And though he certainly can have his interpretation (disagreed with by others), it's a bit telling, considering his own body of work, that he'd think girls could only like Eva because of Kaworu. It's essentially him just praising the character. So I think it has to be replaced with something else that actually does reflect impact. I have a few ideas but can't dig them up now.

• Ishida apparently has no social media presence at all. He doesn't even have a Twitter. I remember him commenting on some poll (apparently some journalist just called him or something) and he talks as if he's completely detached from fans. Amusing. I've talked to Tiffany Grant for instance tons and tons of times, she's very involved in the fandom and gave us tons of privileged information. Same for Spencer, Ogata, Miyamura, etc, in tons of conventions or online. Either way, that will make it harder to find something for Ishida.

• And you absolutely have to consider the perceptions of Anglophone fandom, because that's how the standard fan will read it here. If people get here to inform themselves, it's useful to note specific doubts they might have and will seek information on. This, is, in fact, the Anglophone wiki. Moreover, because Spanish, French, German, Portuguese-speaking fans will still refer to material written in English most of the time. What I'm telling you is that I think you're not realizing the way you're writing is not close enough to NPOV. I'm not accusing you of malice. You say yourself that you are not familiar with the fandom overall, so how could you know what the average fan thinks and what's exactly a problem? Aren't people entitled to their interpretations regardless, or should only one be represented here? Well, I am familiar with fans, extensively, in many languages and many spheres of different preferences for many years - so I know when people can take an article such as this and read things that are not in there. All the Eva articles in Italian put together get only slightly as many views as the Asuka and Rei articles here, to say nothing of the other articles or the main one. Same goes for Spanish, a much larger fandom. And you put all of that together and it's just a handful of articles in the English fan wikis. I am thanking you for removing the death threats myths, but my point is that it was still there because not enough people are active here to bother doing so years earlier. Similarly, the other language Wikipedias get a fraction of activity. The English Wikipedia was absolutely outdated and incomplete (it's nothing compared to the Portuguese one, though. Jesus.), so yes I am thankful for your work here, and I'm also thankful you have been comprehensive of my concerns regarding NPOV. But it just isn't most people's focus.

• If you just want to compare differences in interpretations across fandoms, I find it puzzling you mention the English fandom in particular. The Spanish and Portuguese ones deny those interpretations almost 100% of the time. If anything It'd often take months for a single Kaworu post to show up in places with dozens of thousands of fans. Kaworu is extremely unpopular in those. I am saying that having moderated or otherwise knowing staff for enormous Eva communities. The Eva reddit for instance now has over 160 thousand people. I can't speak as much for French and German having more limited experience in those, but either way, people rarely if ever get their Eva info on Wikipedia, especially in other languages. That is to say, there is an entire Eva wiki community out there, but they are almost entirely centred in our Anglophone fan wikis. Why do you think I mentioned the fan theories fans want to push in our wikis? Because we have so much more of them with so much more viewpoints, and a significant portion of them is not (natively) English-speaking at all. EvaGeeks in particular is about 50% European or Latin American, not Anglophone, and we have quite a few Asians and Japanese too.

• So, really, if you think the English-speaking fandom is problematic, I think you are not realizing that you are dealing with what is actually the international fandom (and to a degree, an international Wikipedia), representing consensus from many, many, many more people that have also happened to produce a lot more fan material and translations with professional skill and knowledge. Even so, I usually only see significant support for the character or the sexual interpretation in English, as even if it's not a majority view there's just a lot more people in absolute numbers, compared to other fandoms. I wager it's at least partly because those fans can't get much like-minded people in their native languages so they can congregate more openly in English-speaking (so, international) spaces, whereas on their home turf they are ostracized. Why do you think you have heard of polemics that originated in English-speaking fandom even without being very interested in it? I know of polemics from other languages but they don't make waves outside of their spaces. The English-speaking fandom simply has far more exposure and participation overall - so viewpoints commonly expressed in it aren't an exception. I've also discussed your edits here and in the rest of the English Wikipedia and have additionally consulted with 9 people for linguistics, sources and balancing, out of which only one (Reichu) is an Anglophone, which isn't my case, and they are puzzled at how you think this is neutral with some of the things you wish to include, particularly considering some of the stuff that was removed in other articles. I initially assumed you'd not disagree regarding the undue weight of spin-offs, yet that seems to be what you're most keen on. I have to wonder if you haven't really dealt with criticism before or people contesting anything you wrote and because of that it might seem you are not expressing anything controversial, but I frankly think you have been in a bubble. Look at the rest of this talk page, for instance. The very fact that you seem surprised by how often you see disagreements coming from this much larger international fandom should illustrate how common that view actually is, and why reflecting ambiguity, avoiding loaded wording and removing things that can be easily misinterpreted (particularly in favour of ones that are relevant) is needed, because that actually is the consensus. See my point comparing previous sources, too. Yes, people can misinterpret things anyway, but there needs to be an effort to reduce that. Let me harken back to the stuff we did on the fan wikis many years ago and have thankfully been successful at combatting misinformation. It's not just the death threats, or just stuff related to Kaworu. Hence, why, yes, an Anglophone reader - or rather, an international reader, needs to have their own specific needs addressed here too. You don't put in the voice actors for the Russian or German dubs of Eva here, for instance, you put in English ones. FelipeFritschF (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Alright, wording on the drafts being referenced later was problematic, though I wouldn't say it was quite OR. Rewrote it and mentioned three sources where that content is indeed present later.FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234:I'll just further state that even though I think Felipe provided a pretty good and thorough examination of the problems with the current article here, I'm just replying in a far more general manner here.

The thing is, even though Wikipedia is the single largest, most comprehensive and most widely used source of information on the Internet and the place where people wanting to get info about something they don't know much about automatically turn to, it is not, however, the place for exceedingly detailed and in-depth information about things. A bunch of nice info is nice, of course, but restraint must be practiced lest articles become more suitable for fandom wikis or other places specifically devoted to some subject. I appreciate your wishes to help and you've certainly been enthusiastic and helpful, but there is only so much detail a Wikipedia page can reasonably relate to.

Besides from that, I also think Felipe is right to point out the unreasonably high amount of spin-off discussion about Kaworu compared to the spin-off discussion provided to arguably more famous and influential characters. I hope you'll understand what we tried to say here and won't back down-while there are problems with you, your enthusiasm and wish to be helpful are awesome and you could become a *great* and exciting member of the Evangelion fandom. Zusuchan (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Section break

I've asked Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, for his thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Will you please summarize that gigantic wall of text, and then ask specific questions? I don't have time right now to spend 30 minutes reading all of that. Please ping me with any response. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it acceptable if I try to give a (relatively) short version of my positionNihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? I apologize in advance for bothering you with this. No hurry, of course. The editor has been updating the Evangelion articles for the past 10 months. I think he has overall made very good work and I have edited these back and forth with him in a couple hundred edits though my focus is on the fan wikis, part of the reason why they were generally incomplete and outdated, so my previous contributions were smaller. However I think this article has been more problematic, so we've been discussing it for a while and it has been an fruitful discussion. I argued there was a lot of impartial language, structuring, poor translations, some misattributed sources or misconceptions, undue weight like gigantic descriptions of spin-offs etc. I've asked other people familiar with the work (though outside Wikipedia as only one of them wanted to comment here) and they have agreed with my positions, provided other sources, improved translations etc. Many of them made the same translations used in the articles and a lot of this information was originally gathered by them though of course it can be found in reliable sources.
We've mostly down to a few hangups, as you can see in the last diff: In Conception, I replaced a detailed explanation of individual scenes of a rejected draft with mentions to overall elements of it used in later works (all sourced, of course), which I believe better espouses the evolution of the character. They were originally missing several details about authorship, staff comments, production process, etc. I also removed a fairly long piece of fan speculation identified as such in the article, denied by three sources where it would certainly be mentioned if true, but commented in passing by a third party (which is, admittedly, the target of the speculation) in a fan-book, where he says he thinks there are similarities but generally denies the fan claim. He has had no involvement in Evangelion, and the article instead identifies it as "might have influenced". I think that's approaching OR and is generally irrelevant, so I just removed it. Later, there is a joke made by a staffer regarding his role in a film... most importantly, the joke is made by the interviewer, and it's attributed as the staffer himself saying it. This is in the context of other equally silly jokes, playing with fans' expectations of the characters (including this one) about other characters that if taken at face value, which I believe is happening, contradict each other and lead to some bizarre conclusions. The translator responsible even explained their nature. I had previously pointed out to his explanation of another source he had translated, along with three other sources, to point out a misattributed third party character guide - it was rewritten as a interpretation, instead of official information. So I think this is misinterpreting what the source actually says and removed that. I had originally added more details regarding the character from the same source, those were initially removed but remain now, alongside the joke. I also think that makes it a bit too long.
In the manga section, there's one ambiguous Japanese wording I was recommended to adjust by the original translating. In the Conception section about half of it was rewritten as it used some very partial translations and unbalanced representation, and I inserted a quick mention of the author's comments on the series that I think puts things into context. Might not be essential, but I think it's useful to help the reader understand. The last dispute is mentioning some analysis that I think put a quite sensationalist claim into context (mostly released around a fan controversy over fansubs back in 2019), something else I was advised to do. The sources contain multiple factual errors about the series and might even be considered an exceptional claim. Fine for reception, of course, as they don't need to be experts themselves. However, I think they unbalance the section as the only negative reception is very unfortunately worded so it can be easily misinterpreted - I paraphrased it a little. The other negative criticisms have been placed in the Characterization section earlier. Two of them unfortunately couldn't be referenced so I didn't insist. If you think this might be somewhat unnecessary perhaps I could simply cut down a little into them, as again they are quite detailed and I don't think the sensationalism and/or (stated) non-neutrality from these sources express balance. In the original edit there were even more of them (6 versus one, I think), one was essentially an obscure ode to the character in a site I had never seen. There is also a reception from a Wordpress. Yes, I know this normally wouldn't be accepted, but as I have mentioned, and received no reply, WP:SPS says"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This writer is used in reference #97, writing for IGN, an independent publication, so I assume he can be considered reliable in his own site too, particularly just for a critical reception. Lastly, Legacy has one mention of a bonus material that is not related to the character at all, but this isn't made explicit(and it'd look silly if it was) so it naturally leads the reader to assume it is, so I removed it.
I should mention the editor has been largely cooperative thus far and in fact has agreed with some 80% of my edits and I agreed with some of his suggestions too though he was a bit aggressive at times. This was far less hectic in the other Evangelion articles, but for this character his original rewrite, like I mentioned in the beginning, wasn't approaching NPOV and giving undue weight to things that are not notable at all. For this last part, as before, I had provided my sources on it, linked to some scans and photos of the sources currently being worked on, cited policy, etc. But for the past few days he has reverted everything again, including today 3 minutes after 3RR expired, accused me of vandalism twice even though he refuses to defend his position for over a week now, with me having asked. I should mention he has submitted his rewrite to the GOCE on the 6th so it'll probably get reviewed in the next 1-3 days, though I have of course helped with grammar, typos, phrasing etc. I am not attempting to dissuade the editor, and like I said I greatly appreciate his edits and have participated in them, but for these points he has either not provided an explanation or seems to be misunderstanding my point. Thank you for your attention. FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can learn how to summarize, sure. I don't have time to read huge blocks of text. If you can't figure out how to summarize, I won't be able to help you at this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The editor has been updating the Evangelion articles for the past months. I think he has overall made good work and I have edited these with him in a couple hundred edits. However I think this article has been more problematic, so we've been discussing it for a while. For this character, in his original rewrite, I felt he wasn't approaching NPOV and giving undue weight to non notable things. I argued there was a lot of impartial language and structuring, misleading statements, inadequate Google translations, some misattributed and misrepresented sources or misconceptions, undue weight like gigantic descriptions of spin-offs etc. I've asked other people with deep knowledge on the work (you can see it above), they had originally provided most of translations and information used in the article, and they have agreed with my positions, provided other sources, improved translations etc.

I took 3 attempts at explaining my edits overall as he undid most of what I wrote and he has progressively agreed, though he was a bit aggressive at times. For this last part, as before, I had provided my sources on it, linked to new material, cited policy, etc. But for the past few days he has reverted everything, including today 3 minutes after 3RR expired, accused me of vandalism four times even though he refuses to defend his position for over a week now, with me having asked. I am not attempting to dissuade him, but he has either not provided an explanation or seems to be ignoring me, and insists on reverting, against consensus.FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234 and FelipeFritschF: After reviewing the edit history, there seems to have been edit warring on the part of both of you here, so I've fully protected this article for two weeks. Please work out your differences of opinion here on the talk page, and if you can't seem to do so, then please walk away for a while. If I see any edit warring (we're talking 1RR, meaning any reverting without discussion and coming to a consensus first) here after the protection expires, then anyone doing so will be blocked. Also, while 3RR technically has an expiration time frame, it can still be considered edit warring even if done after the "expiration". Thank you for working things out like adults. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see I am still waiting for a response but have received none for 10 days now. FelipeFritschF (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in analysis but I request to what is exactly undue weight for Kaworu. He appears in only one episode of the anime so I see the creation as important. The staff members' discussion are helpful to provide further commentary on a character even if it might be trivial. Please try interacting in a formal manner to avoid possible block. I don't know who did it but I once tried cleaning up Shinji's article and got a personal attack in response as I was accused of preferences or something like that. Be sure to note that the references for critical response belong to reliable sources and everything about the making is true. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing against that at all. In fact I added the staff discussion, their reception to fans, background on production, and production process. One source had a lot of material not present in it, which I also balanced. There's some more additional commentary by journalists though these can't be strictly verified. I understand there's quite a lot of discussion but it's mostly summarised in my first comment here in the section break. Plus I remember you being attacked, it was some anon. Unfortunately this happens every now and then. I see it a lot more in the fan wikis. What I'm arguing is against including detailed descriptions of individual scenes of rejected details, and in their place what did get used later, all of that sourced and much more relevant - I did not remove them outright like it's claimed in the reverts' edit reasons. Originally the editor misattributed who was responsible for those (not the actual creator), did not include the details I mentioned, attributed more than one source as official when they weren't etc.
Thing regarding Ikuhara, who had no involvement with Evangelion whatsoever, is that it's speculation identified as such - Anno denies basing it off anyone when directly asked (and, although we can't cite it here, there's good evidence to believe he has had very little role in creating the character. He's the only one not named by him, but instead by one of the episode writers), the character designer explains the design process in 4 sources already mentioned here and that inspiration is never even alluded to - he is even specifically asked if he based him on anyone and Sadamoto also point blank denies it. This is a fairly normal way for interviewers looking for a scoop to fish for some big revelation. I could include "Anno and Sadamoto deny basing the character off of anyone", but that is so self-evident I wonder if it'd be redundant. When Ikuhara is asked about serving as a model in a fanbook, even he is dismissive of the idea, so then this is rendered as "According to some fans, moreover". Like I mentioned, there are additional rumours and speculations in many other sources regarding other characters and other friends of Anno, too. You can find mentions to them in relevant material, but I don't we should include a "maybe". I could easily follow the same logic and do this for Asuka's article. "Anno's wife, Moyoco Anno, has written a manga called Insufficient Direction. In a foreword, Anno talks about their married life, and Moyoco's personality as an internally fragile women escaping her difficult past. Fans speculate he has based Asuka Shikinami's personality off of her for the new Rebuild movies." This is on the same level, and both would be at very least mild OR, but unlike in the Kaworu case this isn't contradicted by 5 other sources, and it's something that even the article treats as a rumor. So why mention disproven fan speculation that is only commented on in a fanbook? I wouldn't even include it in the fan wikis.
As for the reception, again, my problem is that it was very unbalanced. The reviews mostly came from the same time and had obvious errors in fact checking the show itself (like saying Kaworu shows up in the middle of the series), from openly non-neutral or clickbait sources. Like I said, I am not opposed to their inclusion as they nonetheless represent one relevant interpretation, but it needed to be balanced. It was 6 versus one at first, and it was rather unfortunately phrased. I added 4 more simply to put it into context. Then there's joke said by an interviewer attributed by the interviewee, and described by the translator as not serious (obviously) which can also be understood by reading the rest of the page, etc etc. I could use that same page to write something like "Assistant director Tsurumaki has said the entire purpose of the Evangelion 2.0 movie is to get Shinji and Rei together, something that leaves a strong impression on everyone". Except that just like the sentence in this article, this is actually said (in part) by the interviewer and they are joking about fan perceptions. There's more stuff with them joking, making fun of characters and fans, teasing at all sorts of (contradictory) things. It's not a guidebook, it's a collection of rather laid back interviews. The interviewer is Ryūsuke Hikawa, another non-staffer, but instead someone fishing for fun commentaries for fans. Again, this is coming from the same translator already used here multiple times. If you look at the first rewrite you can see almost a third of the article has been adjusted.
What I find puzzling is why similar instances were removed from other articles (correctly) but when I suggested to remove them here it was ignored or replied as if I was making another argument - there used to be extremely detailed descriptions of appearences in other media, even when other characters have a lot more space in those, and in more numerous spin-offs and well-known ones. It was 4 times as much text as Asuka, Rei or Shinji. I have also made a lot of edits on those, not to mention what I do on the fan wikis. I am familiar with several things people don't necessarily know in Eva discussion so it's normal that it might show up here as well. I have explained all of that, provided sources and cited policy and gotten no response. It's nothing compared to what happens in the fan wikis. But this isn't coming just from me - I have checked with the people who provided the same material originally, made the original translations, etc, but a lot of stuff here came (formerly) from Google Translate and there were significant problems and innacuracies. You can already see one agreement above.FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We're supposed, I don't know why, to always discuss the same thing over and over again. I have already reported everything, but I was always answered with illegible WoT. Occam's razor. Perhaps repetita iuvant, as they say. Here a summa of a too protracted discussion.

• Episode drafts are important. To leave only "less ambiguity" without briefly explaining what this means is absurd. I could understand the point if I added a WoT, but I added a simple specification.
• Anno's comments on the series ambiguity don't talk about the character. Very dangerous juxtaposition of sources.
• I am puzzled to leave out a comment from a creator like Tsurumaki.
• Felipe keeps getting lost in a flood of WOTs, but he can't quite make the point. The article is balanced. Analogies do not help, but as Felipe continues, so do I. I compare this article to the other NGE-related articles with a GA status. Asuka's articles cite previous versions, drafts not used for final episodes, speak of Asuka as "desire for the opposite sex", the manga section cites the battle against Israfel as a metaphorical "kiss". The rumor about Rei mentions the draft of the twenty-first episode, Shinji's "desire", and other questions that are equally balanced here. But for Kaworu they argue.
• The yaoi and shonen-ai articles added in "Reception" do not mention Kaworu. They are useless. Juxtaposing sources is OR and is discouraged by all guidelines and common sense. Check it out for you.

I am truly dismayed that this is ruining the CE. What a bad figure. I don't even understand why to call for users who have never contributed on WP and registered ex novo in search of help. That's questionable. I don't see what there is to discuss. It is not a comparison between two differently valid versions; it is a comparison between a valid version of WP and a vandalism that erases material.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert about this content but I tried something similar when writing Subaru Sumeragi's reception section as there was a lot of critical material (he was apparently one of the earliest LGBT characters famous in North America too) about his homosexuality but with the fact it made the reception section too big. On its current state, the critical reception of Kaworu is well organized or need to write about his relationship with Shinji. The only other way to create a subsection would involve his role in the multiple spinoffs and how it was received. Author's commentary is real world information too so it's relevant so I don't think it should be removed. By the way, I don't remember well but in the afterword of volume 11 Sadamoto said he couldn't understand well Anno's Kaworu which might be useful for the article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, we have no concrete knowledge of whether or not Kaworu is LGBT in either NGE or NTE or if he even has any concept of sexuality to begin with. The relationship between him and Shinji is certainly intended to come off as homoerotic in Anno's works and I guess also the manga, but that does not mean the relationship is necessarily a homosexual one, nor that any of these two characters actually show inclinations of having romantic feelings for their own sex.

Felipe already pointed out that it makes no sense to have so much material on Kaworu's spin-off adventures, both due to a frankly unnecessary amount of detail for something that's not a fandom wiki and the fact characters like Rei and Asuka, who arguably have larger presences in spin-off material in large, don't have such detailed descriptions of their spin-off counterparts.

As for the comment by Tsurumaki, that was a joking comment that he was sort-of-but-not-really coerced to by the interviewer, which doesn't actually tell us anything true, canon and substantial about Kaworu. It shouldn't be this hard to understand.

And the idea Felipe's using bad sources is just frankly ridiculous-Felipe is using actual official material and an in-depth knowledge of the Evangelion franchise to make his points, instead of jokes and disproven fan speculation.

I'm sorry if this comes off badly, but it seems a lot of what TeenAngels1234 is doing right now is trying to make things look like Kaworu and Shinji have a homosexual relationship when they really don't in any official NGE work (and I'm not going to add promotional/commercial artwork here, because they feature almost every conceivable character pairing). Zusuchan (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's quite an agreement but please avoid large amount of texts to encourage more involvement from other Wikipedia editors who are not that familiar.Tintor2 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I uhhhhhh really must apologize to those not familiar with the subject but I really wish to leave no stone left unturned. I know a lot of this is very esoteric. I'll just put the gist of my points in bold. You don't need to read my actual detailing if you're not interested.
Look, I am sorry to be dragging this down, but I had asked for your response before and had our our points ignored. The whole idea of content disputes is that people talk it out and come to an agreement. You've probably seen the new 3.0+1.0 scheduled release date so there is more stuff I have to get done elsewhere in preparation for the movie. But it still seems to me to you are not seeing our actual arguments here. I actually had this written down much earlier today but I have been collating a couple dozen untranslated sources. A few have been mentioned in your articles, so I thank you for that, but there are even more elsewhere.
* I am not defending the deletion of the drafts, but to balance their depiction. I used the same argument for replacing the long spin-off detailing with more numerous instances instead There is no need to go into extreme detail when they were already rejected. You didn't do the same for the rejected plans Rei and Asuka had, or Shinji. I am not saying they need to be removed, but I don't think they were being neutrally represented' I have done that, I believe, by explaining the production process and influences it had on subsequent works. Their nature and even Anno's perception of them is still referenced later, I did not remove it. The piano playing, for instance, has relevance in the manga, spin-ofs and Rebuilds. This is something that actually does have notability. This is an idea that Satsukawa had that did influence things, which is why I'm including it instead., not something he came up with on his own that was then immediately removed by going beyond Anno's outline - also something not initially included. It's also something that influenced Shinji and was originated in this draft according to Anno, as apparently he hadn't come up with that idea on his own. Perhaps that can be included in the Shinji article, for that matter.
* I wouldn't say so at all. It just reinforces that point because it's about the series in general. This is supported previously by talking about the depiction of the character and language. Ambiguity doesn't disprove or prove any particular point of view, it just says that both sides are plausible. You'll have people arguing that either side is undisputable - including yourself, yet here you have the creator outright saying it.
* I hope you see my point regarding Ikuhara. I noticed I hadn't actually included the Miyamuara+Anno rumor before. Take a look here. The Kaibunsho, despite having quite a lot of things that might check out, is of course not a reliable source at all, at least not for WP. AAKN is similar.
* Because it's not by Tsurumaki and it's not a real commentary. I've said it above. I quoted the translator. You can go and read it right now. It's not just because something is in a reliable source that it needs to be included. Certainly you've spotted a lot of problems in some unofficial guides and such. You may think the it is invalid, but my Rei counterexample is in the same section, it's not just a supposition. I've mentioned it because I wanted to give an example of how it'd sound to take something a non-staffer said and was replied jokefully as a factual statement. That'd sound ludicrous in the Rei article, so it shouldn't be included here. A joke by an interviewer and Tsurumaki getting in on the joke is not relevant for Rei or Kaworu, or Asuka. And there are other jokes, which I've also mentioned
* And I don't think those comparisons hold the same weight, honestly. For Asuka, you used things that are actual statements, that's fine. You briefly mention plans for Rei and how they actually influenced things, here you go into many times as much detail without explaining how this actually affected things later. There are more things that can be said including in the same sources, but they absolutely go into speculative or non-neutral territory, so I don't think they should be included there either and you know some sources are questionable. Much like there was 4 times as much text to spin-offs with less relevance. Also, I'm not talking about any rumors surrounding Rei, which haven't been included, but just a very similar joke in the same section. There is no speculation or rumours in the Asuka and Rei articles, so I don't know why you're bringing that up. Say, if you wanted to include that Mari was supposed to almost entirely replace Asuka in Evangelion 2.0? That is a very notorious piece of trivia for fans... yet completely irrelevant in actually understand the evolution of her character as it's also something that almost entirely came from Enokido running wild with it. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article for Mari.
* Tintor, I totally get that, but these guys are talking from a very Western point of view. Again, I have been asked to include this from the people. My edit was simply pointing out that this wasn't taking a risk or anything in Japan at the time despite what some guy on CBR that apparently hasn't even watched the show might think. It might not look like it, but this quite a sensationalist claim.
* Regarding the the other users, it's not because they haven or have not contributed to WP (though many have, like Gwern), but because they have expertise on the subject and sources. You said you were okay with help about translations and sources, so I consulted with the people who made the translations and brought the sources years ago, most of them are still active, or otherwise have other comments on them I've pointed out to, like with the Hikawa CRC inclusion you are still attributing to Tsurumaki. So they've orientated me to do these alterations, provided more material (it did take a while, of course) and gave their opinion on your article. I don't know about you, but we have dozens of people working on this stuff on-and-off. The other articles weren't as heavily adjusted because they did not have as many problems. Even if you think you are being impartial, and I am not at all assuming bad faith from you, a lot of people already being indirectly referred to looked at the article and disagreed. Remember for instance at one point the Rei article said she was part of Shinji's unconscious, despite this being a commonly quoted mistranslation and referring instead to Anno's. Thankfully the majority of the material was translated before, but like you've seen in the forums - and I again apologize for Blockio's behaviour, Google Translate is too unreliable for Japanese. I hope there aren't too many other problems in translations, and for better or worse this might take a while to get verified, as we'll be having our hands full with the 3.0+1.0 release. Unless it gets delayed again...

BTW, too bad that Onegeek/Mailinglist is down. Evamonkey is trying to get it back up, and another friend of mine (CWSmith, not as active) has the database - the maintainer himself. He's also trying to revive some of the older fan sites that got mostly lost in time, including fan production etc. This was all supposed to happen thoroghout March as we thought the movie would get re-scheduled to April at the earliest. A lot of conversaton is now beign concentrated in the Evangelion subreddit, as it is quite closely linked to Evageeks, but the format itself is terrible for actually finding older information. I have a bunch of more obscure information from it but it usually doesn't go into Wikipedia even if we can verify it ourselves. Too bad a good chunk of the stuff the staffers say at conventions is only written in fan blogs. Ugh. FelipeFritschF (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given for the removal of neutral and sourced material.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings TeenAngels! Great work on the Eva articles! Quick question: when are you going to get to Misato? Her article needs some improvements still, especially the Reception section. PeteStacman24 (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Section break 2

Considering things got reaaaaaly large above, I'd rather just restate it very quickly here for other people to see, as I did include a bunch of stuff like new sources that are of too specific interest:

• I wanted to replace the detailed descriptions of individual scenes of the discarded drafts made indepedently by one writer, much beyond the creator's orientation, and instead mention scenes that got reused in later works.
• Removoing fan speculation, identified as such, that the character was based on a non-staffer. This is point blank denied by the creator and character designer and not even alluded to in more than one interview that deal with his design. There is one interview with this non-staffer where he acts dismissive of those rumours and just says he thought one scene was similar. I think it's not necessary to include disproven rumours, just like a...
• Joke made by an interviewer when talking to the assistant director, that portrayed as being made by the director himself, ignoring he is poking fun at the fans - he does the same with Rei in that same page. It's not included in her page nor should it be here.
• Repeated quote by that same non-staffer (source used thrice) that is just praising him instead of commenting on reception - I didn't look for an alternative yet.
• Balancing of reception by sensationalist outlets that largely went after clicks during a fan controversy in 2019. Very silly and out context receptions by people clearly unfamiliar with the material or cultural context.FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sophisms do not interest us, TBH. No valid reason has been given.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What sophisms? Felipe's points are very reasonable, and I don't see how they don't count as valid reasons.MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

About real world information, there is no such thing as cruft in real world. Instead there is trivia. A theory among fans might count as trivial. However, if the actual makers of a fictional work address it, then it's notable. For example, there is the famous theory of Squall Leonhart being dead after the first part of his game but it was not added to the article until Square Enix addressed the topic. The same goes for the joke of Captain Tsubasa involving never ending football fields until the author said he wanted to focus player encounters resulting in matches taking forever.Tintor2 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand that, but they haven't addressed it. Anno and Sadamoto were both asked about basing the character or the episode off someone or something in 1997 and 2008. Both just said no and kept going. Both of these publications were not exactly those of the highest journalistic reputation and were fishing for big scoops - the latter was a literal fanbook, and it's also mentioned in a 1997 (?) fan newsletter which includes other silly theories. Ikuhara is not a staffer, but he was asked about it on this fan book, and was also generally dismissive of the idea. You probably remember my other points regarding Tsurumaki (assistant director) literally not saying anything. Other characters have had similar speculation about them - Misato and Asuka in particular, some people swear that Anno dated her voice actress. There are actually more sources that are presented as "proof" for these cases but it's still the territory of fan speculation. Unless we were to put something like "Anno and Sadamoto have denied basing the character off anyone when asked, but fans have speculated about this and 13 years later this was mentioned in a fanbook". Kinda silly.

Digressing a little, I have been working on the article for the new movie recently, in the future I'd like to get decent Production sections going on for all Eva movies. These are the ones I see the most misinformation about (grrr death threats), so I really should have gotten around to it sooner. There are lots of sources being translated right now too (not necessarily publicly at the moment, I'm afraid) so I've been privy to a lot of fascinating information, both old and brand now, which I'll be adding in the future.FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot verify the contents about "3.0 + 1.0" to avoid spoilers.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop. Before ruining another CE. And use common sense. Respect the rules and others.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Felipe is using common sense and being quite respectful of both the rules and other posters, which is more than I could say for you.MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If there's still not gonna be any discussion on these, I'll just have to request for more input from others again, though it did happen outside the TP, besides Zusuchan and Marq.

You've mentioned the pamphlet and interview. Fine if you want to avoid 3.0+1.0 for now, regardless, here it is. Translations for most it, about 60% done at the moment, are posted here. And the Ogata interview is here, why do you say it goes nowhere? It's right there. Page 3.FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarqFJA87: Ah. And so would he be using common sense? And where exactly? He has eliminated things, he has added blatant juxtapositions of sources, and continues undeterred to distort reality after one year. One year in which his error and low quality is apodictic, but he continues. If that's your common sense concept, sorry, you need to read it better in the dictionary and inform you about NGE, use or sources and the very definition of quality.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This opinion is non-binding and given by an editor who has no prior subject knowledge or involvement with any editor involved. I will stop providing a third opinion and take necessary actions if this devolves into an edit war or personal attacks. Since some of this seems to revolve around cruft and trivia, I will note I do edit out cruft and trivia in articles so I err on the side of keeping it in removing such content.

To start, please concisely state your points and reasoning without mentioning what the other user did. This is quite large and I'm seeing mentions of a lengthy dispute. No opinion will be given until I see all sides/involvement's points. Pinging...

FelipeFritschF MarqFJA87 TeenAngels1234. If I missed any please ping them as well. Sennecaster (What now?) 14:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Reworded a bit since clearly I can't proofread. I remove cruft/trivia, I don't keep it in. :P

I changed this article, like the others, in a larger attempt to improve the articles on this anime. I have gathered various information and reported some points. I use this edit as a reference.

1. Speculation, reported as such, states that this character is based on a certain Ikuhara. Ikuhara in an interview reported that this is not the case, finding similarities with a conversation he had with the director, Anno, and similarity with Anno's personality.
2. In the new film series, the assistant director commented the character's final scene. Idem. I reported the bare fact.
3. From an interview in the CUT magazine. I translated the phrase "liking someone" as a matter of prose, rather than "others". The meaning is the same, but IMHO prose is better.
4. A useful interview with the voice actress Ogata has been added by others. But the number was wrong and led to a page with no specific interview, but it was fixed.
5. In the Reception section, a queer portal praised the character by saying that there aren't many queer representations in anime at that time. I have reported what has been said as such. I am opposed to the juxtaposition of sources that do not speak about NGE, are not pertinent to the reception of this character, and lead the risk of going down the dangerous path of the Original Research.
6. I still have some doubts about Vrai Kaiser. Despite being an active critic already mentioned as IGN editor in this article, that personal site consists of a WordPress blog. Since he is not an indisputably and undoubtedly renowned critic, I don't know if an exception can be made on the no-blog rule.

BTW, I want to ping @Tintor2: too; he also stepped in and I find him a very reasonable user and useful in NGE-articles.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's common to have speculations when it comes to real world information about the character's creation. For example Cloud Strife and Leon S. Kennedy have sections where the multiple developers responsible for his voice, personality, role, etc. due to their multiple portarayals so there is nothing about real world creation that might come across as fancruft. Blogs are kinda hard to trust. IGN had a writer named Anoop Gantayat who often worked in his own blog primarily focused in Japanese gaming while Anime News Network had a guy working in Biggest in Japan. Now that's more complicated to trust so it might be wise to ask the project if such website can count as reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it needs a balance. Currently, I think there's too much and this article is difficult to read without prior subject knowledge. I agree with your blog trust thing. Thanks for sharing your points. Sennecaster (What now?) 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1. According to some fans, moreover, he may have also taken as a model Kunihiko Ikuhara, director of the animated series Sailor Moon and a friend of him. Ikuhara, in an interview, denied the rumors, comparing Kaworu's cinic personality to Anno himself; while stating that he was not in the least involved in the creation of the character, he also stated he had close correspondence with Anno, with whom he was on good terms from the early design stages of Neon Genesis Evangelion. During the production of Sailor Moon, the entire staff went on a trip to the spa, and Ikuhara chatted all night with his colleague, animator of some episodes of the series; Ikuhara himself, watching the episode, noticed how the situation with the bath was the same. This is trivial stuff. I would destroy all but "According to some fans, moreover, he may have also taken as a model Kunihiko Ikuhara, director of the animated series Sailor Moon and a friend of him. Ikuhara, in an interview, denied the rumors." It feels more like something that would belong on a Wikia/Fandom for NGE.
2. No comment as of now.
3. Will request someone outside of this dispute with no prior knowledge to translate. No comment as of now.
4. I don't see the problem? Reference fixing should not be a dispute.
5. No idea what you are referencing, there is too much conflict on this page for me to find it. No comment as of now.
6. I have seen way too many blogspots and Wordpress blogs. It's not RS, and unless a consensus on Vrai Kaiser's merit as a critic is established, keep it out.

I would like to stress to keep it civil and to stop arguing or debating or whatever on this 3O. I'm having difficulties following this right now because I haven't heard from all sides and you are still debating each other, making it harder for me to find the points I need to look at. Sennecaster (What now?) 20:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my tardiness, I am rather busy so I might not answer right away. I'd also like to ping Smeagol_17, AngryHarpy Sjones23; Zusuchan if they can chip in, and although they generally agreed with my questionings they have limited involvement. I went in more detail in section break 2.

1. Drafts: I am not saying to remove them, instead to delete their minutious and I believe puffery descriptions. They were made very early on, somewhat independently thus they don't represent authoral intent too well. Their nature is already mentioned so describing individual scenes feels redundant. I've added sources explaining staff reaction and production process which were absent. To compensate, I pointed out elements that were reutilized in spin-off works, though the editor thinks it's OR.
2. The director was asked about basing the character on someone and denied it in ref #9, the character designer also in ref #17. Ikuhara is not a staffer. I find it dispensable because I know this leads to larger misconceptions. Source is a fanbook published 12 years after, of questionable reliability. There are similar speculations for other characters, so I think it falls underWP:UNDUE.
3. Assistant director Tsurumaki did not say this, the first half. It was said by the interviewer, another non-staffer. The second half is a joke making fun of the character and should not be taken as if it is an actual intention on the creator’s parts. Not just me, the translator says the same. Context is ‘’several other jokes , part of a laid back interview, that didn’t go into other articles either. Other sources were poorly represented before.
4. Non-specifity fits the context better. It was retranslated on my request by a professional translator and I'm following his advice. I don’t know the editor's Japanese skill though he has mentioned using Google Translate for transcription. This translator also did another request of his.
5. The interview is clearly labelled. I sent the link to the introduction but I guess that wasn't checked. I'm questioning of a few other things: another character's voice actress joking in an obscure music event being mentioned twice, though it's debatable if that's okay as a reception.
6. The sources [[WP:BIASED|are openly non-neutral] and contain other innacuracies. They partly revolve around a fan controversy which garnered media attention in 2019. I added a short sentence on this not being at all groundbreaking or innovative in 1995 Japan, and though the additional sources don't deal directly with the character, they provide comprehensive commentary on the cultural phenomenom he is likened to, so I wanted to balance them out. The fact they don't need to mention him already goes to show the absurdity of the claim.
7. I also wanted to include a very recent statement reflecting on reception, by the character's voice actor, instead of Ikuhara's in that fanbook the third time (part of the same quote twice) when all he says was essentially just praising the character.
8. Kraiser might not be that notable on his own, but we have yet again the problem that not that many people have written about the character, when you discount clickbait sites. Kraiser is the author of an explicative article on ref #97 for IGN, so I argued he could be again per WP:SPS.
9. Finally, although I’ve been insulted again, I'm not seeking to deter his contributions. I myself have added a number of sources and have been involved in other rewrites as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelipeFritschF (talk • contribs) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Felipe. This is a third opinion response because this is getting long and complicated.

1. I would trim even further, this article is wordy. No need for staff reactions, that's straight into trivia territory and would literally only interest fans of the show.
2. No comment for now, I need some context, anything that's a fan/site is going to immediately not be RS and I would find a different RS that supports it or delete it entirely.
3. Why are we even mentioning the jokes? I'm having difficulty even seeing merit of its inclusion right now. No commment for now, more context needed.
4. Chlod can translate. Just provide me what you need translated specifically. No comment for now, need a source.
5. Also no idea what you're talking about. No comment for now.
6. It's all crufty or trivia, I can't tell anymore.
7. That would be a primary source; need a secondary source to back it up if it were to be included.
8. Start a goddamn RfC to get outside opinions.
9. I appreciate you being civil.

Please refrain from talking with others; no idea if you have or not but just as a reminder. Kind regards and thanks for reaching out for a third opinion. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Wait. Let's call things by their name. WOTs look almost reasonable if one doesn't explain concretely or is into NGE or in the article, but that's not the case. We are all good with WoT, not all with clarity, facts and incisiveness. This is what leads to reasonableness.

1. No. Their nature has not been described, but only hinted at. We need to clearly specify what it does mean, what the drafts say. Quickly and with common sense, as done. Generally, avoiding evasiveness.
2. That's what is written in the article. We broached the subject, and Ikuhara denied it. In any case, definitely worthy of mention. I am simply neither a native Japanese speaker nor a native English speaker. I suspect the rumour originates from a publication named Eva Tomo no Kai (I haven't checked out the Tomo no Kai yet).
3. The interviewer said this, but Tsurumaki agreed with him and continued the speech. Context is respected; we need to keep it in appropriate length and clarity. Nobody takes something seriously or not. We report the facts.
4. As stated, no controversy here, since Ogata's statements on the current exact page is clear and MOS:ACCESS is respected.
5. No. The juxtaposition of different sources is very dangerous and close to a WP:OR. Especially in a paragraph that deals only with Reception.
6. Since for WP:SPS itself he's not an estabilished subjectmatter expert", and while his interpretation is more than reasonable, we have to delete the WordPress blog and eventually find another alternative. Not that many people have written about the character? I doubt. NGE is probably the most analyzed anime in academic literature.

BTW. For Ikuhara quote, repetita iuvant, I think the previous quote is more informative.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1. No comment.

2. If you provide what you want to be translated by someone who's completely neutral in this, I can at least clear up translation disputes. I speak English natively and the most I know of Japanese is one of the ways to say "sorry".

3. No comment.

4. Why are you citing WP:ACCESS? No comment I have no idea what you are talking about.

5. If you have issues about OR, cool. This entire article is filled with little RS and a lot of trivial stuff to me.

6. I have to agree, it's a contested RS. At this point, I'm submitting a RfC on the source if it gets out of hand.

As a note; do not continue to reply to other people involved. This is getting hard for me to track and I can't accurately figure out which points I need to follow. This is a reminder to remain civil, and thank you for giving your opinion and reasoning. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm not in-depth on everything that's being discussed here, I might make a few mistakes-if so, I hope Felipe'll clear them up.

1. If the descriptions of the early drafts that were initially given seemingly now count as "hinted at", then I'm not sure what an actually good description would be in your mind. As has been said before, this is Wikipedia, not a place that needs detailed description of how every last draft changed one character. Say: "Compared to the character as he ultimately appeared, the earlier drafts had such and such differences". It's simple, relatively concise and gives off cool info without being too wordy and too detailed for a website that is, once again, ultimately not the place for extremely in-depth discussion. (I'm also pretty sure there's a lot more interesting about the earlier versions of Kaworu than merely his and Shinji's relationship.) And quite frankly what you wrote was too wordy and too detailed, instead of being done "quickly", as you just said yourself is the best way to get things done.
2. Ikuhara and others having said he is not the inspiration for Kaworu is worth mentioning, but not in a way that is too wordy and invites misconceptions which the current edit is. There is no need to note that Ikuhara had close correspondence with Anno or that the spa trip was "similar" to the bath scene in ep.24. The way it's all worded comes off as inviting misconceptions, regardless of whether or not that's the actual intention, which I sincerely believe it's not.
3. Tsurumaki was joking. A joke is not a serious agreement.

It seems to me that the core issue remains the same-too much content than can be reasonably expected from Wikipedia and a lot of content that invites misconceptions about Kaworu's character and the relationship between him and Shinji-by which I mean the relationship is made out to be a lot more homosexual than it actually is. (It never transcends homoeroticism, for that matter.) Zusuchan 18:43 19 April 2021(UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on this. I agree with all of your points, and thanks for providing another neutral and somewhat outsider opinion. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Aeje.

1. Are you seriously saying that a presentation like that brief compendium is too detailed? Really?
2. And exactly what would lead to errors? I haven't been told yet.
3. You know that half of the interviews with NGE staff (Schizo/Parano, 1.0 CRC and so on) and, generally, Japanese animators are full of "(laughs)", but we have to report the things worthy of mention cum grano salis in a neutral way and common sense like this, right?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Not addressing your points. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Quod scripsi, scripsi.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright so:

1. Including the drafts in the first place is because, somewhat uniquely to this character, his appearance was influenced by the scriptwriter's early ideas which differ considerably from the outline given to him by the director. Creative process is described concisely here: [1] [2] [3] I've included the reactions because there is a notion that the drafts were the "real intention", not something that surprised everyone else and led to further changes. Describing them in detail is redundant and undue, IMO. And yes, I think the descriptions are long and unnecessary.
2. Simple, the idea that because this unrelated non-staffer found similarities twelve years later, people can assume the character actually was modelled on someone, despite the director and designer's explicit denial. I know is might not seem obvious, but I am very well aware of the conclusions people draw from things in the wikis that aren't left clear. Source of the rumour is indeed Eva Tomo no Kai (lit. Eva Fan Club) a 1997 newsletter compiling fan theories and rumours, comics and such. It essentially says "did you know that some fans think Kaworu was modelled on Kunihiko Ikuhara, a friend of Director Anno, though it is unknown if he's be a model on personality or appearance". There are scans available here. So even that source treats it as trivia.
3. Tsurumaki: we're arguing that it is not worthy of inclusion as it bears no actual importance to the character's development, like the preceding joke surrounding Rei/Shinji doesn't. It is already not correctly represented. This becomes even more egregious with the way the final movie turned out.
4. Not many people have written about this supposed innovation except activist and clickbait Western sites that tend to ascribe this to pretty much everything in a culture they're not familiar with. They make many other mistakes regarding Eva. That's why I think it needs contextualization for NPOV.
5. I'm not dying on the Kraiser hill but sure enough it could warrant an RfC. I included it because it's an useful comment on popular reaction, instead of just praise from randoms that barely know the show or context. Too bad we need to rely on "ClickBait Resources".
6. The VA (Ishida) quote is from the pamphlet accompanying the new movie, which does make it a secondary source. It's just a comment on popularity. The current Ikuhara quote is used thrice and was published in that fanbook, and is also secondary. Besides being more useful, I wanted to include it for not being the same.
7. By all means Sennecaster, if you wish to ask someone else or ultimately ask for some form of arbitration, I'd be happy to hear more opinions. I find it an enjoyable discussion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

3O statements

So far, this revolves mostly around passionate editors that are debating the minutae of including what looks to be trivia. I would like to state that I have no prior knowledge of this conflict, I know nothing about NGE or this person, and I have zero interest in cruft and trivia being in an article. I am inclined to remove anything that does not have RS or is fan speculation.

Reminder to minimize debate with each other, to provide context/references, and to keep it civil. Thanks for your cooperation in this. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am confused by the order of these comments. Better to answer in chronological order here one comment at a time each.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll answer again ASAP but unfortunately I'm having some significant schedule conflicts. Hopefully some hours from now. I have information on some sources being discussed which are quite interesting.FelipeFritschF (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for this late response. This 2O been way over my head (this is probably only my third), and I feel bad for not delivering my final thoughts sooner. I think that currently, the inclusion of detail is overall not constructive to the article. It is overly specific and delves into trivial or even CRUFTy at times. This page is having a hard time holding my interest and I'm reading this with an editor's eye. Some of the excessive detail can be cut and probably should be cut, like ", or 'Knockin' on Heaven's Door'" (the series' twenty-fourth episode)" and "The boy would have been allowed by Nerv to enter its laboratories and, after a clash in which Shinji found himself "in the dilemma of having to fight against an anthropomorphic enemy", "the greatest secret of the organization" would be revealed." (I'm having a hard time seeing the latter's connection to the section anyways). Blogspot references should be completely nuked out unless they are verified to be the blog of a respected critic in the broader anime community. Any translations should be worked out by someone on-wiki who has a strong understanding of Japanese and does not use machine translations. I think what Zusuchan said summarizes my feeling very well on this matter. There is a lot of extra detail that me as a reader and me as an editor is reluctant to wade through. I don't see any hints of personal attacks, but some of the statements and tones could be taken as uncivil or aggressive. I hope this helped, and I ask that possibly both people involved in the core of this step away from the article for a week or two to re-evaluate their arguments if you both disagree heavily with my opinion. Thanks for cooperating with me and for seeking some form of dispute resolution. Kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 22:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sennecaster, thank you for your input. Sans for the staff opinion on the drafts I don't think I disagree with you or Zusuchan at all, so I'm sorry for giving you that impression. I'll ask for an RfC on Kraiser. However, I don't think we're anything closer to consensus. I'll try to ask more editors to join in, if possible, and will probably ask for some other form of dispute resolution. I'm partly in a hurry because there is a GOCE request for this article, of course, it's not like it can't be edited afterwards either. I'm open to any suggestions you might have. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kaworu Nagisa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. First I'll give it a big look and might list any possible issues in this section.Tintor2 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234:

• First of all the lead feels a bit complicated in terms of theme. I would recommend the first paragraph to focus on his main appearances, the second about his creation and voice, and the third one about general reception. Since the character has been more prominent in 3.0 maybe such film should be highlighted in the lead.

 Done Check it out

• "Fifth Child and a Nerv agency pilot" sounds a bit confusing as normal readers would be confused what is exactly the former

 Done I will have to remove it from the other articles too, then.

Creation

• "Saigo no shisha": I'm pretty sure "Saigo" means "last" but I would add literal translation too.

 Done

• The second paragraph lacks the first link of Shinji Ikari and an explanation to who he is.

 Done

• "According to some fans, he may have also used Kunihiko Ikuhara, the director of the animated series Sailor Moon and a friend of his, as a model. In an interview, Ikuhara denied the rumors, comparing Kaworu's cynical personality to Anno himself, while stating he was not in the least involved in the creation of the character. He also said he had close correspondence with Anno, with whom he was on good terms from the early design stages of Neon Genesis Evangelion." Lacks a reference

 Done

Appearances

• "Kaworu has the appearance of a boy with gray hair, pale complexion, and red eyes,[50][51] and usually refers to human beings with the term Lilim.[52]" This is a bit random. The design of the character should be left to be subject of discussion only if the artists like Sadamoto mention him (which I think it's already done) as well as for alt of images.

 Done

• By any chance did something happen to Kaworu's minirole in "End of Evangelion"? I remember he was a judge with the other Rei when Gendo is rejected by Rei 3. Since it's a small mention you could mix it with Neon Genesis Evangelion and make a "Neon Genesis Evangelion and The End of Evangelion"

 Done But I'm not sure about the title. Since there is a continuity I would simply leave "Neon Genesis Evangelion".

That's all for today. Will check later sections later. Good work in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Wired compared Kaworu with Ryo Asuka, the main antagonist of Gō Nagai's Devilman." I can imagine the comparison but the article just leaves it like this. Is it possible to explain why?

Cultural impact

• The character ranked high in popularity polls.[156][157][158][159][160 This is quite an overkill. Can you expand on the prose like "based on the impact in his series[156], among others"
• Both Chris Beveridge and Dani Cavallaro seem to have the same opinion so you could mix them togetherl.

The rest feels easy to understand to me. Fix the issues I'll gladly pass it.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234:

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Passing the review. Good work in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ikuhara

So it seems there is an edit issue between TeenAngels1234 and FelipeFritschF. Please stop doing this engage in a discussion before you might be blocked. Also, Felipe seems to be use anon accounts. Use always your own account and remember to be civil.Tintor2 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tintor. Thank you :') Always hoping for a respectful environment. I don't think that IP is Felipe, honestly, but it made a questionable change nonetheless. It's probably another user who does not want to be recognized.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tintor2 sorry, you might not have seen the rather enormous amount of edits, including by anons, in the Eva articles, around the JP release in March some 8 accounts were fighting over a single word on the page for the new film, and there are even more now, you can see the views spiking too. The IP is Italian according to WHOIS, and I'm not. I've seen even more edits on the fan wiki and tons of vandalism as well, in fact, I'll go deal with it right now as I've been doing for a while too, which has been tiring me. Yes, I agree with the change but that's another matter entirely, as you can see by previous discussion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Guys please don't edit war. If editors keep reverting each other, both of you might be blocked for an unknown time, making all your intentions be wasted. I'll ask for a third opinion.Tintor2 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tintor2 Can you give it? The changes are on Vrai Kaiser's website, which, as far as I can say, is a blog, Tsurumaki's comment on 2.0 final scene and Ikuhara's interview.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I had asked for a WP:3O before and it had been unproductive. By all means you can ask for one again, but I think it's better to get someone completely uninvolved. I had asked other less involved editors directly as well though they didn't necessarily wanted to join. There are other changes that had been discussed before also. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I already asked there. Be patient and please avoid reverting edits. Who knows how much time you might be blocked for doing these edits.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: It looks like this was just a fan theory, which the creator stated was inaccurate, and no reliable and independent source flags as being of any particular significance. That being the case, it would seem to be undue weight to include it in the article; there are generally innumerable fan theories regarding popular characters. Such material is generally excessive detail for an encyclopedia article, and I see no reason to believe the situation different here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the response. That is my position as well. Please let me re-state my argument from the previous 3O:

1. The director was asked about basing the character on someone and denied it in ref #9, the character designer also in ref #19. Ikuhara is not even a staffer, and is dismissive himself of the theory that he's a target of. I find it dispensable because I know this leads to larger misconceptions. Source is a fanbook published 12 years after, of questionable reliability. There are similar speculations for other characters, so I think it falls under WP:UNDUE.

There are other lingering questions from the previous 3O, if you can provide input. This is the entire diff for context. I can wait, of course:

1. Drafts: I am not saying to remove them altogether, instead to delete their minutious and I believe puffery descriptions. They were made very early on, somewhat independently thus they don't represent authorial intent too well. Their nature is already mentioned so describing individual scenes feels redundant. I've added sources explaining staff reaction (#20, expanded on #9 and #19) and production process (#21). To compensate, I pointed out elements that were reutilized in spin-off works, though the editor thinks it's OR.
2. Assistant director Tsurumaki did not say this, the first half. It was said by the interviewer, another non-staffer. The second half is a joke making fun of the character and should not be taken as if it is an actual intention on the creator’s parts. Not just me, the translator says the same. Context is several other jokes , part of a laid back interview, that didn’t go into other articles either. Other sources were poorly represented before.
3. Non-specifity fits the context better. It was re-translated on my request by a professional translator and I'm following his advice. I don’t know the editor's Japanese skill though he has mentioned using Google Translate for transcription. This translator also did another request of his.
4. That part mentioning Orihime/Hikoboshi: I'm questioning of a few other things: another character's voice actress joking in an obscure music event being mentioned twice, including an image, and I don't think it's okay as a reception.
5. The sources are openly non-neutral and contain other innacuracies. They partly revolve around a fan controversy which garnered media attention in 2019. I added a short sentence on this not being at all groundbreaking or innovative in 1995 Japan, and though the additional sources don't deal directly with the character, they provide comprehensive commentary on the cultural phenomenom he is likened to, so I wanted to balance them out. The fact they don't need to mention him already goes to show the absurdity of the claim.
6. One critical review was discussed here and keeps getting removed.
7. I also wanted to include a very recent statement reflecting on reception, by the character's voice actor, instead of Ikuhara's in that fanbook the third time (part of the same quote twice) when all he says was essentially just praising the character. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's rather a bit much for a single discussion, and would probably just lead to a hopeless tangle. I think probably better to discuss each of those points individually under their own heading. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. I just followed the previous 3O format. I can wait. FelipeFritschF (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I see the IP user is insistent on it also and the high number of edits continues in related articles, I did remove it again just now, do you have any input @Seraphimblade, possibly? No hurry, of course, Thank you. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe I have more to say than what I did. If agreement still can't be reached, a full request for comments may be the next step needed. Third opinions aren't some kind of binding decision, they're just an additional person's thoughts to hopefully help move a discussion forward. If that doesn't work, an RfC will get more input than that and hopefully make the consensus clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Akira Ishida.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)